Image via Wikipedia

Reported by The China Beat, a description of a Pepsi ad shoot in Urumchi, the capitol of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China.

The story unfolded for us as we arrived at the sports stadium before dawn on a warm Saturday morning in May. The ad centered on a football match between a (Han) Chinese national team and an “international conglomerate” foreign team. At the beginning of the ad, the Chinese fans would be interspersed between the international fans, but losing badly to the foreigners. The roars of the international crowd silenced their cheers for the Chinese national team. Then, the two Chinese pop stars flew in (literally, with the help of two really cool stunt men from Beijing) on cue to rally the Chinese crowd with Pepsi. With the arrival of Pepsi and the very attractive Chinese pop stars (with all the usual fanfare of a recent Zhang Yimou film), the Chinese crowd simultaneously had an epiphany and collectively realized that in order to beat the evil foreigners they needed to rally together behind Pepsi. At this point, the Chinese fans pushed their way through the international crowds to form a critical mass, which was able to make their voices heard. With that, the Chinese football team was able to defeat the international conglomerate team. The entire narrative centered on the two Chinese pop stars (rather, their amazing stunt men) performing all kinds of acrobatic stunts at the cost of the dignity of the international team—such as, but not limited to jumping off the top mezzanine into the crowd of Japanese nationals (played, very begrudgingly, by Han Chinese high school students) and rebounding off the head of the Japanese drummer into a sea of Han Chinese students, who were anxiously awaiting Pepsi. (More)

CCTV newsman Bai Yansong said in an TV interview that apart from the complaints people had about the medical system in the past, they now have to face another issue: Trying to understand the newly released reform draft. “I am personally convinced that many people won’t be able to offer any opinions for the simple fact that they are not able to make sense of it”, Bai said. “The funny thing is that it’s impenetrable after putting all the Chinese characters together,” and the first reaction to solicitation would be “not understandable.” He also pointed out four flaws of the draft:

-too much medical terminology causing trouble for ordinary people
-twisted wording along with sentences with confusing punctuation
-dry and meaningless language
-too general and hollow due to its form of expression

The Chinese government’s response is that it’s expected that “ordinary people aren’t able to make sense of it,” and they are planning to “publish a friendlier version of questions and answers concerning central issues of the new reform after collecting the most frequently asked questions.”

Much of the health care policy debate in this country as well sits on a similar sea of non-comprehension by “ordinary people.” I remember the proposed Clinton Health Security Act in the early 1990s. It was also an impenetrable tome of jargon and fragmented presentation. Maybe it comes with the territory. If it does, then the hacks and not the wonks will rule.

The reformed plan clarifies government’s responsibility by saying that it plays a dominant role in providing public health and basic medical service. “Both central and local governments should increase health funding. The percentage of government’s input in total health expenditure should be increased gradually so that the financial burden of individuals can be reduced,” the draft said. The plan listed public health, rural areas, city community health services and basic medical insurance as four key areas for government investment.The plan also promised to tighten government control over medical fees in public hospitals and to set up a “basic medicine system” to quell public complaints of rising drug costs. The basic medicine system includes a catalogue of necessary drugs that would be produced and distributed under government control and supervision. Its goal is to ensure accessibility to a range of basic medicines and to prevent manufacturers and businesspeople from circumventing existing price controls.

We’ve been following China’s developments on health care reform for a while now (here, here, here, and especially here). The process has been slow but deliberate with significant research and policy debate on the role of private insurance, for example. China is taking the long view. The question is whether it will be too long for the millions now without health care, and too centered on government bureaucracies to deliver that care.

Image via Wikipedia

Tom Nissley at Omnivoracious writes that Horace Engdahl, permanent secretary of the literature jury for the Nobel Prize, thinks Americans aren’t part of the “big dialogue “. Quoting Engdahl:

Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can’t get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world … not the United States…. The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining.

Ouch.

And yes he does sound a little old school — maybe 19th century old school.

Anyway, I’ve been looking for that big dialogue. Having a hard time finding it that’s for sure. But I can say one thing though, I don’t think it’s in Europe. No, I believe it’s moved lock, stock and barrel to China. Unfortunately, good literature comes from hard times. And they seem to have enough of that to fuel any literary aspiration.

The problem is that Europe is simply not translating enough, and THAT ignorance is restraining indeed.

I need to write down slowly how I feel about the Baby Milk Powder Scandal. How horrible it is that more than ten thousand babies were hospitalized and many more harmed (by contaminated milk power)!

What can I say? What can we say? Am I waiting for other people to say what has not been said? Looking around, I find that many friends are as trapped in silence as I am. They are also tormented by speechlessness.

Are we too shocked to speak? Or have we already said what we should have said? Or is it because we can’t find any words to respond to such a cruel reality?

This kind of torment has actually existed for quite a long time. We are wearied by the struggle between remaining silent and speaking out. Often times we can’t find the right words and choose to remain silent. Will our conscience become numb and impassive if we stay silent for too long?I think it is quite possible. If that happens, it would signify the end of our morality and spirituality.

I have actually encountered similar situations many times. I want to tell you something terrible that I’ve heard about but didn’t do anything about. I feel that I’ve participated in concealing something horrible whenever I think about it.

It was during the spring festival of 2005. I met a cousin who lives in the countryside. She told me that the rice they grew that year was not edible because a deadly pesticide had been applied to the plants. Some pigs died after being fed with the chaff from the rice. So the farmers bought rice from elsewhere to eat — and they sold the poisonous rice they grew to people in Shanghai.

My cousin didn’t say whether her own pigs had been poisoned. She has a limited education and doesn’t know much of the world outside her village. I am not sure whether she got it right when she said that the poisonous rice had been sold to Shanghai. But one thing was known for sure: the farmers bought rice to eat, and secretively sold their contaminated rice to others. And it’s something that farmers around the area all knew about.

What could I do after I heard something like this? Where could I go to report the problem? I can’t think of any official in the vast country who would patiently listen to me and try to address the problem. Most officials would probably regard me as insane if I went to talk to them. They would glance at me arrogantly from behind their desk. I don’t think I could stand the humiliation for even a few minutes. Why should I seek this disgrace? “There are all kinds of things like this happening in the country. There’s nothing I can do about it, ” I said to myself, trying to appease my conscience.

How pitiful I am! I already know that my effort will be useless even before I take any action. Is there a devil who lives in our hearts and sneers at our actions all the time? His mission is to deprive us of the ability to respond, to smother our enthusiasm, and to paralyze our will to take action. I am caught in the same situation as the impassive official I imagined. Both of us are controled by a curse and have lost the ability to take appropriate action…

But why should I know about things like this? Who are the people that constantly put them in front of my eyes and keep me suffering from this feeling of powerlessness? I hate to hear about things that reflect the darkness of human nature which I can do nothing about…I have no choice but to live with it. I place my heart and conscience in a corner, as if they are frozen and numb.

However, my humanity has been hurt. The damage is immeasurable. Trapped in this kind of silence and not able to do anything about it, I feel bad about myself. I almost feel that I’ve become a pile of dogshit, or a slave who only knows work but not how to speak. I chat and joke with people around me, but I am not able to talk about the biggest bewilderment on my mind.

To speak, or not to speak, this is the question. This is a question that is hard for our judgment. But what we’ve lost is the ability to make basic moral judgments.

From Nimrod comes word of the debate in China over the question of a national bird.

What does China have as a national bird?

Well, it doesn’t yet. The house sparrow, so common in China, and named one of the four vermins during the 1950’s (and killed en masse), has received a plurality of votes among ten birds in an unofficial online poll for China’s national bird. This has stirred up a conversation online about what constitutes a national bird, and more interestingly, about the national character and outlook of the common Chinese people.

Reading about the genesis of the 1950′s effort to eliminate the sparrow is telling about the ecological misunderstandings of the times. Looking at the propaganda posters pushing that campaign, you witness the mobilization of peasants ostensibly for public health. Of course what resulted  was a public disaster.

So my vote, if I had one, would also be for the long suffering common sparrow as a testament to it’s heroic survival under the most uncommon threats to its existence.

TechCrunch reports on news that despite previous trade problems between Apple and China Mobile, the iPhone may be going to China. The potential market is huge with most of the 200 million internet users in China getting access from their cell phone. The news comes from an insider rumor published by it.hexun.com and translated by Marbridge Consulting.

A source inside the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) revealed yesterday that China Mobile (NYSE: CHL; 0941.HK) had reached a basic agreement with Apple to cooperate on bringing the iPhone to China without the revenue-sharing agreements Apple has in place with other carriers. Instead, China Mobile will procure the handsets for their full price, and then on-sell subsidized handsets to consumers. The source explained that China Mobile could buy a 3G iPhone from Apple for USD 299 – an example price – and then sell the handset to users for USD 199, treating the additional USD 100 as compensation to Apple.

(I’m attending this conference at Harvard University and will do some live blogging here as the mood or content strikes me. One of my reasons for being here is to make sure I’m up-to-date on HIPAA privacy and security requirements and to get a reality check on the emerging issues.)

Yesterday’s session fulfilled most of my expectations of what a great conference can bring to exploring ideas and opening up new areas of inquiry in a topic – privacy – that is getting beat to death every day with  tired clichés. So here’s hoping today’s speakers will help get us to the same level.

7:40 am Set up at the Harvard Faculty Club again, plugged in, with good wi-fi. Coffeed up as well.

7:55 am (Marc Rotenberg) will overview the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) 2008 initiative to get privacy into the Presidential Campaign.

8:00 am This is a prime moment, and this is the first audience, to launch “Privacy 08″. How do you get an issue into the race? We want it to be a grass roots campaign rather than the policy paper approach. Well get a button and a cool logo. Met with representatives of the campaigns of both parties and positions have been written by both sides. Have even set up a Facebook cause and Twitter Privacy 08! Got a ‘Privacy 08′ internet domain and are planning events to raise awareness. Will be getting materials to the political party conventions, and then holding a Candidate Forum. Will also use YouTube and questions sought from online audiences to pose to candidates. Rotenberg reviews some of the questions already submitted that they will ask the candidates, such as, “Should US firms sell surveillance technologies to the Chinese government?”  “Do you believe that the Constitution limits the ability of the President to to conduct warrantless wiretapping?”

8:30 am (Jeff Rosen) What is the future of privacy? Is it dead or on the verge of a dramatic resurrection? The truth is more complicated. Citizens want contradictory things. They don’t care until their privacy is threatened then they care a lot. He sees 5 possible privacy Chernobyls:

• Behavioral Targeted Advertising: Leaking of that tracking data (Danger of being judged “out of context.)
• Search Terms: Massive Data Leak of search terms.
• Facebook: Not a privacy free-zone. For example -The Beacon scandal: Exposes your purchases to your friends without your knowledge.
• StarWars Kid: A private video was place of the internet without permission followed by much embarrassment (and a lawsuit).
• Ubiquitous surveillance: Public likes the “security theater” of public video anti-crime surveillance. Could move from ‘closed circuit’ to ‘open circuit’. Google live-feeding public surveillance video is a definite possibility.

9:00 am (James Koenig) Talks on the “New, New Thing in Privacy.” Five things to consider now!

• Impact on privacy associated with the slowdown in the economy – Business goals versus privacy goals when companies are under financial pressure. Resources to prevent privacy breaches may be pulled back. More aggressive marketing techniques may ignore privacy concerns. Privacy officials could be eliminated or downgraded.
• Global expansion for new markets and operations – Privacy rules and cultures are not the same. Lower safeguards and infrastructure in Asian countries. China does not have a lot of privacy law history but this is changing. Public pressure is building for a comprehensive China privacy law. Or what about the tougher European standards? What is a privacy official to do? You will need a fleet of lawyers if you want to create a uniform business practice and it is quite difficult to set up a coordinated business governance structure for privacy.
• New Identity Theft Techniques – Number 1 FTC complaint! Impacts 5% of the US a year. Credit card fraud etc. Much of it is from paper and knowledgeable insiders that cause ID theft events!
• New Health care information laws driving disclosures and other risks – Electronic medical records (EMRs), personal health records (PHRs) pose more risks for breaches of medical information. Privacy legislation is on the move in the US Congress as we see in new laws on genetic information.
• Class action and litigation relating to privacy – A definite building impact on corporate behavior.

9:40 am Panel of various speakers on privacy advocacy issues and challenges.

• Convincing officials, policy makers that privacy is not an obstacle but a way to move health information technology forward.
• Privacy law is largely administrative and regulatory. What if the agency has a bad record? Congress wants to move forward through statute. A challenge for advocates.
• HIPAA not necessarily always a good thing. Many say HIPAA is enough. No more. Nobody wants to go back there politically especially for those who want health IT to move fast. Entrenched health interest do not want to reopen privacy. They’ve adjusted and want to keep it that way.
• Fake (Synthetic) identity theft – Fake private information to get credit cards. Not a mainstream issue but an opening into the technology that allows for entry into real ID theft/privacy issues.
• Chief privacy and security official roles are changing – focusing on breach prevention and response.
• How to get market competition on privacy – Car companies now compete on safety. What about businesses competing around their ability to secure the privacy of your data?
• There’s a lot of independent characters in this field and they are not well funded. Privacy advocates are usually not represented in conferences like this one and have been totally shut out of the debate in Washington. They blame us for HIPAA. Do we threaten corporate and government interests?
• People need to see the nexus between privacy and civil rights. The debate  and convergence is evolving.

11:15 am (Ken Anderson,Representing Ontario Privacy Commissioner) “Privacy by design, build it in”. For example use privacy audits and privacy impact assessments. Transformative Technology: Make the technology work for you (for ensuring privacy). Take a pragmatic approach. How to transform video surveillance technology for example? Short retention time of video, frequency of privacy audits, ensure adequate oversight, prevent voyeurism by using technology that block/unblock face recognition.

(Need to break for lunch)

1:35 pm The afternoon sessions will focus more on security issues related to HIPAA starting with an introduction and overview (John Parmigiani).

Where are we today? We  have spotty compliance with HIPAA. Is 2008 a year for HIPAA enforcement? GAO and OMB scrutiny? OIG and CMS audits? New political pressures (new national election and health care reform) and state data protection laws are entering the mix. We have an increasing number of data breaches. Medical identity theft rising (est. 1,000,000 incidents in 2008). The usual suspects are insiders, but new “outside” threats for medical identity theft from abroad and various black markets selling medical IDs. Mobile devices, remote access pose their own challenges as does the changing regulatory landscape. EMRs, PHRs, Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault and the general push for E-heath present new security issues. Corporate governance is driving compliance as are incentives, patient safety and consumers themselves.

2:00 pm (Kate Boren) Talking about security issues in working offsite. Hard enough to do in-house IT controls without looking beyond. Management often would look the other way when it comes to offsite work – A head-in-the-sand approach. We have to be proactive to protect information. HIPAA requires the protection of all devices, media and their surrounding conditions. What about personally own devices, public kiosks, wireless networks, hotels, airports etc. Do you know who works offsite? How do you identify users? Who should own the devices or laptops? We’ve got to recognize the situation. There is considerably more risk when you go outside the corporate home. There are many vulnerabilities and threats to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our sensitive information. We have to be aware of them and manage them. CMS security guidance came out in December 2006. We are still seeing 1 or 2 security incidents each month reported in the press regarding remote access/media.

Well that’s it for now. It’s been a terrific conference. Back to BAU — Blog as usual.

Image via Wikipedia

From an excellent review of the issues by Rebecca Mackinnon at RConversation

. . . China’s wired elites are able to engage in discussions about social issues and even many policy issues. As Isaac Mao likes to say: ‘Before free speech, we need free thinking.’ The Internet is incubating a generation of Chinese free thinkers - who have got used to debating and acknowledging different points of view - who may over time help to shape a more pluralistic system for their country. But it will take time and there will be plenty of obstacles on the road ahead. Many fundamental arguments have yet to be had about precisely which road the Chinese people want to take. Until recently, those public debates were not possible thanks to media censorship. On the Internet, they are starting to happen.

From the China Digital Times on the arrest of Wu Xin and others concerning a public protest of a petrochemical project in the city of Chengdu:

The police seriously urge people to be aware of national laws and regulations and to observe them, not to create or disseminate rumors through the Internet or through cell phone text messages, otherwise the police will carry out strict monitoring and control mechanisms. We will carry out punishment according to law for each case we discover; absolutely no soft treatment will be granted.

The police severely warn those who intend to disturb social stability by instigating unrest and organizing illegal assemblies to stop their criminal activities.

Beyond comment.