5 ms·

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china". The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US. Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

bob_theslob646 9y ago
>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?
- PricelessValue 9y ago
  > How do you even measure that? How about on a per capita basis? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-surveillance-commissioner-risk-cctv-public-transparent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su... Or how about 1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech. 2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance. 3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable data? Nearly 50% of china still lives in rural areas.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to note “nearly 50% of China” is a massive number.
  - rconti 9y ago
    So "leading surveillance systems in the world" means: 1. Who "started it" 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!) In other words, you worked backwards to produce vague descriptions of metrics by which your point would be true. If it weren't for the fact that these vague metrics in no way support your assertion.
    - PricelessValue 9y ago
      >1. Who "started it" Not just who started. The quality and sophistication. > 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!) Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?
      - rconti 9y ago
        "Leading" implies, to me, sophistication, how widespread it is, and how many people it impacts.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  With the UK, this is already well known. They have about a camera per 14 people give or take. Post 9-11, in the US it's also spread. Typically it's in really crime-ridden areas where law and order is barely sustainable (yes these exist). The only one I can't comment much on is Russia. Given that they essentially have a dictatorship, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a big program as well. imo the state of the art surveillance isn't in China. It's either in the Middle East (especially in Dubai) or Singapore. This happened a few years back: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-anatomy-of-mossad-s-dubai-operation-a-739908.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-eye-for-an-eye-... (I used to work in the video imaging industry.) The OP of this thread is missing the point of the article though. They can call themselves Liberals, Conservatives, Communist Party Members, Nationalists or whatever, but only the elites want mass surveillance and really no one else
  - dictum 9y ago
    Russia pretty much wrote the hypothetical NSA worst-case into law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law > Most of the act's amendments came into effect on 20 July 2016. Amendments that require telecom operators to store recordings of phone conversations, text messages and users' internet traffic up to 6 months were announced to come into place on 1 July 2018; however, senator Anton Belyakov has submitted a proposal to move the regulations' start date to 2023, because of the extreme amount of data storage technology needed to make fulfilling the requirements possible.
  - namelost 9y ago
    On the plus side, there is no law against face coverings in the UK. You can legally walk along the street wearing a guy falkes mask, motorcycle helmet or niqab. Nor is there any requirement to carry ID.
    - brokenmachine 9y ago
      Thank god for that. I can wear my spiderman costume. How lovely to live in such a free country!! /s
  - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Haydos585x2 9y ago
This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.
- PricelessValue 9y ago
  > This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people. > What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want. You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.
  - Haydos585x2 9y ago
    We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country. It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it. He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.
    - PricelessValue 9y ago
      > We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country. But you said "people of those nations"? Now you are backtracking? > It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it. I didn't say it was a prerequisite. My point is that the assertion that "we don't want dystopian surveillance" is absurd considering the amount of surveillance we already have. Okay? Considering the guy wrote for a western news outlet, I'm assuming by "we", he meant the western world. > He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this. Right. And my point is that we already have it.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Saying "nobody" is at least partially wishful thinking. Hell, lots of people on HN want it. Just look at recent discussions of encryption backdoors for FBI.
ng12 9y ago
Did you read the article? Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.
- PricelessValue 9y ago
  > Did you read the article? Yes. > Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives. Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom. What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives. https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta... Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference? If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?
  - thinkpad20 9y ago
    > Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom. I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do.
    - PricelessValue 9y ago
      > I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do. Of course they do. Good god you completely missed my point.
      - dang 9y ago
        Flamewars aren't welcome here. We ban accounts that post like this, so we'd appreciate it if you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abide by the rules from now on.
  - samplatt 9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
> The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. Citation needed. All of those "countries" don't "want it". Perhaps some of the authoritarian leaders in some of those countries want it.
- PricelessValue 9y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-surveillance-commissioner-risk-cctv-public-transparent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...
justicezyx 9y ago
I have chatted with people providing tech support for this. The level of monitoring is beyond your wildest imagination. The anecdotal number says Xinjiang spent 30B RMB on the security and surveillance. I have no details about the exact expense items.
- fdsak 9y ago
  I think that is because they have large populace to deal with
mlindner 9y ago
Bullshit. Britain and the US don't do anywhere near the scale of this collection. Also we have cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States which are set to (likely) outlaw ability for warrantless surveillance of position, which they do in China.

bob_theslob646 9y ago

>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?

PricelessValue 9y ago
> How do you even measure that? How about on a per capita basis? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-surveillance-commissioner-risk-cctv-public-transparent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su... Or how about 1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech. 2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance. 3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable data? Nearly 50% of china still lives in rural areas.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to note “nearly 50% of China” is a massive number.
- rconti 9y ago
  So "leading surveillance systems in the world" means: 1. Who "started it" 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!) In other words, you worked backwards to produce vague descriptions of metrics by which your point would be true. If it weren't for the fact that these vague metrics in no way support your assertion.
  - PricelessValue 9y ago
    >1. Who "started it" Not just who started. The quality and sophistication. > 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!) Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?
    - rconti 9y ago
      "Leading" implies, to me, sophistication, how widespread it is, and how many people it impacts.
chaostheory 9y ago
With the UK, this is already well known. They have about a camera per 14 people give or take. Post 9-11, in the US it's also spread. Typically it's in really crime-ridden areas where law and order is barely sustainable (yes these exist). The only one I can't comment much on is Russia. Given that they essentially have a dictatorship, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a big program as well. imo the state of the art surveillance isn't in China. It's either in the Middle East (especially in Dubai) or Singapore. This happened a few years back: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-anatomy-of-mossad-s-dubai-operation-a-739908.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-eye-for-an-eye-... (I used to work in the video imaging industry.) The OP of this thread is missing the point of the article though. They can call themselves Liberals, Conservatives, Communist Party Members, Nationalists or whatever, but only the elites want mass surveillance and really no one else
- dictum 9y ago
  Russia pretty much wrote the hypothetical NSA worst-case into law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law > Most of the act's amendments came into effect on 20 July 2016. Amendments that require telecom operators to store recordings of phone conversations, text messages and users' internet traffic up to 6 months were announced to come into place on 1 July 2018; however, senator Anton Belyakov has submitted a proposal to move the regulations' start date to 2023, because of the extreme amount of data storage technology needed to make fulfilling the requirements possible.
- namelost 9y ago
  On the plus side, there is no law against face coverings in the UK. You can legally walk along the street wearing a guy falkes mask, motorcycle helmet or niqab. Nor is there any requirement to carry ID.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    Thank god for that. I can wear my spiderman costume. How lovely to live in such a free country!! /s
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Haydos585x2 9y ago

This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

PricelessValue 9y ago
> This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people. > What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want. You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.
- Haydos585x2 9y ago
  We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country. It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it. He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.
  - PricelessValue 9y ago
    > We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country. But you said "people of those nations"? Now you are backtracking? > It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it. I didn't say it was a prerequisite. My point is that the assertion that "we don't want dystopian surveillance" is absurd considering the amount of surveillance we already have. Okay? Considering the guy wrote for a western news outlet, I'm assuming by "we", he meant the western world. > He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this. Right. And my point is that we already have it.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Saying "nobody" is at least partially wishful thinking. Hell, lots of people on HN want it. Just look at recent discussions of encryption backdoors for FBI.

ng12 9y ago

Did you read the article? Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

PricelessValue 9y ago
> Did you read the article? Yes. > Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives. Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom. What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives. https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta... Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference? If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?
- thinkpad20 9y ago
  > Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom. I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do.
  - PricelessValue 9y ago
    > I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do. Of course they do. Good god you completely missed my point.
    - dang 9y ago
      Flamewars aren't welcome here. We ban accounts that post like this, so we'd appreciate it if you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abide by the rules from now on.
- samplatt 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

> The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. Citation needed. All of those "countries" don't "want it". Perhaps some of the authoritarian leaders in some of those countries want it.

PricelessValue 9y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-surveillance-commissioner-risk-cctv-public-transparent https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...

justicezyx 9y ago

I have chatted with people providing tech support for this. The level of monitoring is beyond your wildest imagination. The anecdotal number says Xinjiang spent 30B RMB on the security and surveillance. I have no details about the exact expense items.

fdsak 9y ago
I think that is because they have large populace to deal with

mlindner 9y ago

Bullshit. Britain and the US don't do anywhere near the scale of this collection. Also we have cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States which are set to (likely) outlaw ability for warrantless surveillance of position, which they do in China.