The CCP first and foremost keeps control by keeping their people happy, and controlling the narrative in such a way that the people are happy.
Surveillance in China is a Damocle's sword at worst - hardly used in an enforcement capacity, transgressions (like using VPNs) are mostly ignored, and it's very easy to slip through the cracks. Everyone is breaking laws all the time - they're a tool only selectively used. Police will look the other way as long as you don't force their hand. Funnily enough you don't even need a surveillance state to create bullshit laws that you selectively enforce. They made a surveillance state... and don't really use it.
I'm more afraid of surveillance states in a western countries, because they have a much better track record of consequently enforcing laws as written. If they make it illegal to say bad things about the party and use encryption, you can be sure enforcement will go beyond just silently deleting your critical Facebook post and killing your SSH connection. They'll throw the book at you.
> Surveillance in China is a Damocle's sword at worst
> Police will look the other way as long as you don't force their hand.
This is a recipe for massive corruption. Selective enforcement allows low-level bureaucrats and law enforcement officers to "decide" to enforce the law based on criteria like "has this person paid me this month".
A consistently-enforced surveillance state under a democracy is "better" in the sense that its injustice is more obvious to the electorate and there's at least a chance to repeal it at the voting booth.
the internal security measures costs more than military which says how happy the populace is?
It is in CCP's interest to make sure everyone's breaking the law all the time, this gives them maximum flexibility to arrest anyone at will (天威難測) also legitimises their long standing claim that judiciary independence is bit of a dirty word.
I guess at the end of the day it's down to personal preferences, some do like it hot.
...is an accurate description of "prior restraint".
The government (in the US at least) isn't allowed to discriminate based on the content of your speech even if it goes against "controlling the narrative in such a way that the people are happy". IIRC, the burden is on the government to prove the censorship is the result of a compelling public interest and there are no lesser solutions which can be employed.
> Police will look the other way as long as you don't force their hand.
They usually don't need to look the other way because people will do it secretly not talk about it openly and most people by a mile would never even use it (because it is illegal and most people don't want to do illegal stuff unless it's necessary and it is not necessary)
You don't need to enforce laws strictly to create an obedient population that does not dare think, you just need to have those laws and do a few show trials
> They usually don't need to look the other way because people will do it secretly not talk about it openly and most people by a mile would never even use it
Let me know when there are people talking about VPN [edit: for accessing censored information] as VPN (not masking with euphemisms) under their actual name on a popular website which is not banned in PRC and so not only used by the people already on VPN in the first place
> how do you think companies which has international business operate in China? how they communicate with their clients how they advertise in YouTube?
I actually happen to know. They have subsidiaries in HK and elsewhere.
> how developers of Microsoft in China pull their docker images?
That their employees use VPN is true. I did not write precisely. iirc like in Russia using VPN for "technical purposes" is actually legal. Using it to access censored information (which is what we are talking about) is not. So if you are not an IT worker and have no excuse and you use VPN to use Twitter... THEN police would have to look the other way. How often does that happen? Probably almost never because people would not shout about the fact that they do it
Not secretly, at least in terms of "翻墙" (circumventing the GFW). It is commonly talked about in mainland chatgroups and on websites, sometimes with euphemisms (e.g. "科学上网" (surfing the web scientifically), etc.), but no one really bats an eyelid when talking about it.
In any case, I find it amusing that the case of UK disallowing E2EE could come back to CCP so quickly. Maybe without the example of CCP, other governments wouldn't realize the greatness of censorship? /s
Source: being a native who lives in mainland China.
And in case people think this is just propaganda, I can vouch for this as someone that lived in China for a few years as a foreigner and currently live in the UK.
Everyone does it, it's normal, even police do it… I am much more concerned about going afoul of the government here in the uk than back in china
If you are in a tech savvy bubble everyone uses VPN. Sometimes because your job requires it (which makes it legal). Outside of it no regular person uses VPN. Guess which circle has more people.
Police is a bad example because they obviously can do whatever they want that's not even a question. What are they gonna do put themselves behind bars?
You just literally supported my point that people talk about it secretly. They talk about VPN anonymously and/or using various terms that are not "VPN" or its Mandarin equivalent.
The term you gave as "circumvent the GFW" actually literally means "climb over the wall". Guess which one is illegal. Yes double meaning words are famous in PRC just like in USSR and this basically illustrates what I mean. You need to be in the know, in the circle or bubble to even understand what is talked about
> in mainland chatgroups and websites ... no one really bats an eyelid when talking about it
Techies talk techie things. There are more non techies than techies. My point is from police's perspective 90% of the people they deal with don't use VPN.
Surveillance in China is a Damocle's sword at worst - hardly used in an enforcement capacity, transgressions (like using VPNs) are mostly ignored, and it's very easy to slip through the cracks. Everyone is breaking laws all the time - they're a tool only selectively used. Police will look the other way as long as you don't force their hand. Funnily enough you don't even need a surveillance state to create bullshit laws that you selectively enforce. They made a surveillance state... and don't really use it.
I'm more afraid of surveillance states in a western countries, because they have a much better track record of consequently enforcing laws as written. If they make it illegal to say bad things about the party and use encryption, you can be sure enforcement will go beyond just silently deleting your critical Facebook post and killing your SSH connection. They'll throw the book at you.