4 ms·

I won't dispute this - the private sector is composed of people just as the government is, and their attachment of sensitive data to vulnerable identifying info

I won't dispute this - the private sector is composed of people just as the government is, and their attachment of sensitive data to vulnerable identifying information is just as abhorrent and many times more dangerous than anything the federal government could ever do. In my mind, the novel problem here is that the Chinese government can use such information in order to socially police people that nominally aren't under their control. Google in Europe or America has no desire other than to collect info for commercial purposes, and there is no inherent desire to turn over private information to any government. WeChat in America constitutes a potential extension of Chinese governmental control onto American citizens. This can be something as innocuous and reasonable as the denial of visas due to certain communications, or something worse. American citizens may get their Chinese friends and relatives in trouble for something they say. A few cases of these, and suddenly half the American WeChat user base knows they have to watch what they say unless they don't care about people they know. Moving out of the platform is not an option due to network effects. China has long maintained that foreign tech services offer an opportunity for foreign countries to subvert their information controls, and has banned thousands of domains and companies under the guise of protection from foreign influence, commercial or gubernatorial. What's to say that China won't turn around and do the same thing to other countries? To your point about no advertising BS in China, well you'd be right if it were 20 years ago. Unfortunately, advertising has become a booming industry in China. Take a walk in most significant Chinese cities, and you'll find the constant bombardment of information to be more garish than any American counterpart. The Chinese Internet is no different.

e12e 9y ago
You've heard of this enemy of the state called "Snowden", right? 5 eyes? The US coalition dropping helpline missiles based on cellphone meta data (obtained from private corporations)? Or simply border control agents asking for social media credentials, partly based on knowing you have an account? I'm not saying I would enjoy being spied on by the Chinese government in particular... But it's not as if the "Western Internet" is free. Finally, I think it is rather naive to think that the controlling interests behind global corporations are somehow so much more benevolent and disinterested in maintaining power, than governments are.
- Joking_Phantom 9y ago
  I won't comment on Snowden since there are significant efforts to continue his cause, and his whistleblowing is one part of a backlash against the overreach of US government surveillance. The cellphone meta data issue is complicated by the fact that the telecommunications infrastructure of the US is not private and only recently regulated. New industries with antiquated interpretations of law are bound to be abused by those anxious to expand their power, but I trust that the American civic process will overturn such abuses of power within a reasonable time frame. Rome was not built within a day. Border controls are also a separate issue - it is our current understanding that the federal government has both the power and mandate to exercise significant controls at the border, and several rights outlined within the Constitution are not exercisable at border crossings. Furthermore, American citizens can never be denied entry, only delayed, so citizens can always deny information requests. Stupid usages of our interpretation of the Constitution, such as asking for access to social media accounts or electronic devices, are technically legal. But social media information have no expectation of privacy, and again access to accounts and devices can always be denied. Recent efforts by advocacy groups are also seeking to overturn this overreach of power by some foolish officials within the CBP. Another case of the law not catching up with technology. To the point of global corporations, I'm not saying that they are benevolent or disinterested in maintaining power. Nor am I suggesting that American companies do not turn over information to the government, or misuse the information they collect. But they are private bodies. Just as citizens can perform crimes and ethically bankrupt actions, so can companies. But they don't adhere to an overarching ideology, nor do they claim to represent the will of a people. Google mucking around in America and Europe alike may be tolerated, or punished. Tencent and WeChat is different because of their entanglement with the Chinese government, and should be treated differently. Overall, if America begins to halt Chinese influence on American citizens, and China continues to do so for its own citizens, there is at least some degree of "protection" of individual rights. This would be the foundation for protection of individual rights between any government and any individual.
  - e12e 9y ago
    > But social media information have no expectation of privacy, and again access to accounts and devices can always be denied. So fb messenger has no expectation of privacy, but wechat does?

e12e 9y ago

You've heard of this enemy of the state called "Snowden", right? 5 eyes? The US coalition dropping helpline missiles based on cellphone meta data (obtained from private corporations)? Or simply border control agents asking for social media credentials, partly based on knowing you have an account? I'm not saying I would enjoy being spied on by the Chinese government in particular... But it's not as if the "Western Internet" is free. Finally, I think it is rather naive to think that the controlling interests behind global corporations are somehow so much more benevolent and disinterested in maintaining power, than governments are.

Joking_Phantom 9y ago
I won't comment on Snowden since there are significant efforts to continue his cause, and his whistleblowing is one part of a backlash against the overreach of US government surveillance. The cellphone meta data issue is complicated by the fact that the telecommunications infrastructure of the US is not private and only recently regulated. New industries with antiquated interpretations of law are bound to be abused by those anxious to expand their power, but I trust that the American civic process will overturn such abuses of power within a reasonable time frame. Rome was not built within a day. Border controls are also a separate issue - it is our current understanding that the federal government has both the power and mandate to exercise significant controls at the border, and several rights outlined within the Constitution are not exercisable at border crossings. Furthermore, American citizens can never be denied entry, only delayed, so citizens can always deny information requests. Stupid usages of our interpretation of the Constitution, such as asking for access to social media accounts or electronic devices, are technically legal. But social media information have no expectation of privacy, and again access to accounts and devices can always be denied. Recent efforts by advocacy groups are also seeking to overturn this overreach of power by some foolish officials within the CBP. Another case of the law not catching up with technology. To the point of global corporations, I'm not saying that they are benevolent or disinterested in maintaining power. Nor am I suggesting that American companies do not turn over information to the government, or misuse the information they collect. But they are private bodies. Just as citizens can perform crimes and ethically bankrupt actions, so can companies. But they don't adhere to an overarching ideology, nor do they claim to represent the will of a people. Google mucking around in America and Europe alike may be tolerated, or punished. Tencent and WeChat is different because of their entanglement with the Chinese government, and should be treated differently. Overall, if America begins to halt Chinese influence on American citizens, and China continues to do so for its own citizens, there is at least some degree of "protection" of individual rights. This would be the foundation for protection of individual rights between any government and any individual.
- e12e 9y ago
  > But social media information have no expectation of privacy, and again access to accounts and devices can always be denied. So fb messenger has no expectation of privacy, but wechat does?