9 ms·
Does China’s digital police state have echoes in the West?
- awat 8y agoHistory doesnt repeat itself but it rhymes.
- gr3yh47 8y agoAmerica was born, nay, torn out of a monarchy when independence was our declaration conveyance it formed a republic with a twist of democracy power to the people's voice was it's purveyance today the people blindly march toward oligarchy as we for free products provide our own surveillance and I long for the future Just and Loving theocracy When those in Christ know God fully in unveiled valence.
- bilbo0s 8y agoAnd that valence will have to be unveiled. The surveillance will demand it.
- milcron 8y agoWhich part of history are we rhyming with at the moment?
- sandworm101 8y ago>> Citizens of liberal democracies do not expect to be frisked without good cause, or have their homes searched without a warrant. Lol. What world does this author live in? I expect to be frisked every time I go to an airport or football game. I expect to have to turn my pockets out every time I cross the US-canada boarder. I'm not a minority, but I assume some who are will want to add to this train of thought re being frisked by cops. And a warrant to search my home? Warrants are pieces of paper. Cops drive tanks and carry machine guns. Whether they bothered to phone a magistrate for permission before hand is the least of my concerns as they break down my door. Warrants only matter if they are going to charge me with something and want evidence admitted in court. Even then, there are so many exceptions. The evidence gets in. My concern isn't about paperwork, it's that I'll be swatted one night and they will shoot my dog. Also, the "warrant requirement" is an American construct. It isn't a thing in places like Canada, which most would consider a very liberal democracy. Canadian cops can use evidence even if seized illegally. Nor do they have to stop questioning you if you demand a lawyer. Nor do you get a jury trial. Don't assume that all western democracies use the American legal system.
- mywittyname 8y agoI'm curious as to why you've been down-voted with no dissenting remarks. You're basically correct in my experience too (I've not been SWATed, but I've several former neighbors that have).
- sandworm101 8y agoPeople hate posts that strike to close to home. I've haven't had any neighbours swatted, but I have had friends online targeted. It is something that can haunt you for years.
- HillaryBriss 8y agoyour comment touches on something i often wonder about: the differences between US civil rights and the civil rights in our liberal democratic allies (e.g. Canada, the UK, France, et al). i had no idea that in Canada of all places "cops can use evidence even if seized illegally." i do know, however, that government censorship of the media is permissible in the UK. there's no single definition of "democracy" across the world. it's interesting that some in the US seem to think that, if an individual right is ever modified or restricted in the US, it means we're at "the end of democracy." while, at the same time, these very same rights are routinely restricted in other countries but we still consider those countries to be "democracies."
- gruez 8y ago>i had no idea that in Canada of all places "cops can use evidence even if seized illegally." according to [1], it's not a blanket yes or no. it's a balance of whichever choice would make the justice system look worse. ie. turning someone's home up-side down to find 1g of weed vs a serial murderer getting away with murder because the judge didn't fill out the paperwork properly. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Print_version#General_Principles_9 https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_an...
- rikkus 8y ago
- ivl 8y agoI'm not sure it matters, so much as do people in the West have the option to vote it down. Seems that's been slow to happen.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoYou can't vote against executive policies that nobody in Congress is brave enough to reign in.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThey all learn from each other. In addition we have companies that are building the necessary infrastructure which then probably can be used by a surveillance state. Unless surveillance gets checked by law it will soon be world wide.
- shawn 8y agoThe most ironic part is that employees are convinced — totally convinced — that they aren’t building that infrastructure. It would be different if people had the self awareness to admit it and that they were ok with it. But it’s either cowardly (afraid of peers’ reactions) or somewhat delusional. I wince to express this, but I’m at least happy to be living in America. For all its flaws, it feels like the founders really did see this type of situation coming and did the best they could to give us some tools to defend against it. Other places have fewer. Still, those tools seem to be eroding with time.
- maxxxxx 8y agoA few weeks ago at work we looked at the categories Facebook puts each of us into for advertisers. The Nazis or the east German Stasi would have been super happy with that level of data. It would have made their lives much easier. You probably can always buy the data you need for a surveillance state if you can afford it.
- deegles 8y agoI struggle with the idea that for every programmer that finds it unethical to build weapons or surveillance software, there are others that believe it is their patriotic duty to do so (or at least enough to get those projects done).
- glenneroo 8y agoI've been involved in projects which were teetering on the edge of my ethical boundaries, knowing full-well they would/could easily be abused... but I knew if I didn't do it, I would lose/quit my job and then somebody else would just do the project. Even if say, 90% of programmers turned the job down, there are enough hungry people in the world who would gladly do the job in order to feed their family/buy a lambo/etc., regardless of ethical implications.
- prophesi 8y agoFor an in-depth look on surveillance in the States, I recommend @War[0]. It delves into the rise of the NSA and the role of digital surveillance in modern warfare, along with the NSA's relationship with large corporations to achieve these goals. [0] https://www.amazon.com/War-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex/dp/0544570286 https://www.amazon.com/War-Rise-Military-Internet-Complex/dp...
- flanbiscuit 8y agoInteresting that this shows up on HN today because I was just reading a thread[1] on reddit where a user was forced to install spyware on their android phone when crossing into this region of China Also I had no idea what was happening in that region. This[2] is from one of the commenters in that thread: > As someone from Xinjiang and migrated with my family to somewhere else, This is only a small part of the whole oppression and violation of human rights going on in North Western China. Now a days, Uyghurs students are not allowed to speak their mother tongue in schools, fasting during Ramadan is considered "politically incorrect"(let alone praying etc), and you will end up in "re-educational camp"(aka prisons). Uyghur females are forced to marry Chinese mans, as part of CCP's assimilation process, almost one million Uyghurs has been locked up in prisons, EVERY SINGLE successful Uyghur businessmans has been locked up, influencial figures like artists, scholar,, singers has gone into "political re-educational camps" too, many getting their organs harvested, and CCP sell them in the black market. Many healthy teenagers dies after being released from those camps, due to being some essential part of their body organs being harvested. The international community knows very little about everything happening in Xinjiang because Uyghurs don't have an vocal enough exiled leader like Dali Lama, and also because NO media is allowed inside Xinjiang, especially foreign media, if you have friends and family that have interests in Chinese culture or China as a country, I hope you guys can spread the message and things happening in Xinjiang, China, towards Uyghur people. Its comparable to the Holocaust, just done very low profile, I really mean it. It has past the point of making me angry, I just feel extremely depressed when I read things happening back home, and talking about them. Im just glad myself and all my family members are in a safe and free country now. If you wanna learn more, you can visit Radio Free Asia's website, and they have section reporting on Uyghurs. > Edit: I'm sorry if this is getting political, I by no means saying that this has anything to do with average Chinese citizens and Chinese people, most of Chinese people I've seen and work with are all very humble really nice people, I'm only speaking out towards Chinese Communist Party, and please don't get too political under the comments,and I just want to give some background information of why CCP installating malware on people's phone is a common phenomenon in China (especially places like Xinjiang). Please be nice to each other, regardless of ethnicity or any differences. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/security/comments/8ofiiw/chinese_border_police_installed_software_on_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/security/comments/8ofiiw/chinese_bo... 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/security/comments/8ofiiw/chinese_border_police_installed_software_on_my/e05qaib/ https://www.reddit.com/r/security/comments/8ofiiw/chinese_bo...
- cryoshon 8y agoechoes? the only element we're missing is making widespread arrests using the data that's harvested. to be clear, we're still making many arrests and incarcerating far more of our people than anywhere else in the world -- just using criminally exploitative drug policy as our "gotcha" more than technology, for the moment. the economist sees "echoes" of the police state in the west. i see the same song played in a different key and a less manic tempo.
- baybal2 8y agoBe worried. If NSA's work was to any extend genuinely relates to foreign intelligence gathering, they would not be prowling through web diaries American teenage girls. How you think they were supposed to look for Ben Ladens on American facebook.com and myspace. Moreover, Snowden's powerpoints confirmed eager cooperation from all major US dotcoms, with facebook's early ex-CTO nearing to publicly admitting that NSLs they received were about "get raw DB access" which I assume they still have, and use up to this day.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThe USG is able to lawfully conduct domestic surveillance of citizens with security clearance. It is trivial to turn that panopticon on to the rest of the populace.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoOf all the dogs the ATF has shot and all the doors the FBI has wrongfully kicked down how many of them belonged to people who are part of a three letter agency? Enforcement organizations treating their own like they treat normal people is the rare exception to the rule. There are many lines drawn. The thin blue one just happens to have the most brand recognition among the people on the wrong side of all the lines.
- seren 8y agoAmesys, a western society, has sold a surveillance system to Gaddafi, and is still selling to dubious actors. http://www.telerama.fr/monde/amesys-egyptian-trials-and-tribulations-of-a-french-digital-arms-dealer,160452.php http://www.telerama.fr/monde/amesys-egyptian-trials-and-trib...
- K0nserv 8y agoThe other article[0] linked in this one is well worth a read. I had never heard about Uyghurs or China's treatment of them before I read the reddit thread yesterday about phone spyware. It's pretty appalling and what more how the western tech community idolizes China and their tech scene while looking right past atrocities like this. 0: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/05/31/china-has-turned-xinjiang-into-a-police-state-like-no-other https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/05/31/china-has-turn...
- rgrieselhuber 8y agoAlso take a look at the assaults on free speech in the UK.
- DanBC 8y agoMost (although not all) of the examples are bullshit that include people making credible threats of violence. Which particular example are you thinking of?
- bilbo0s 8y agoWhy is this excuse always used? I actually agree with it a lot by the way. I don't want to be hypocritical about the whole thing. But it seems that the fact that a lot of Uighurs make credible threats of violence, (indeed, are actively involved in ACTUAL mass violence), is often used as an excuse by the Chinese for everything they do. Similarly in the UK, some people make credible threats of violence, and the surveillance state kicks into high gear on everyone. And I'm not just picking on the UK and China, many nations use this excuse. Look, I'm a "tough on terrorism" kind of guy too. Uighurs blowing things up, fine, crush them. With prejudice. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Period. I get that. Why a dragnet on your entire population though? The issue is scope creep. It starts out with the UK wanting to find people making terroristic threats, and in 20 years the family court accessible text messages between you and your lover are being entered as evidence in your divorce hearing.
- 8y ago
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThe problem isn't the surveillance. Surveillance is just modern technology being applies as a means to an end. History shows that you can't stand in the way of technological progress for very long unless you're willing to be an authoritarian police state to do it). The problem I see it is one of a divided society. The people who create and operate the laws and the surveillance dragnets do not worry about being subject to them in their fullest. Politicians will argue for gun control, enact laws that erode our freedoms, half-ass healthcare and approve funding for surveillance dragnets that will be used to make an end run around civil liberties. In the back of their minds they know that they have armed security, that no enforcement agency will risk using those laws to abuse politicians, they don't have to worry about healthcare and they can afford a good lawyer to convince the court that their civil liberties have been violated. The people and organizations that actually implement these bad things don't rock the boat because when you're on the inside whatever bad thing it is doesn't apply to you. Cops are exempt from gun laws. The three letter agencies don't use secret courts to handle issues with their own personnel and don't send information requests and gag orders to each other. People in the healthcare industry know how all the tricks to play and strings to pull to get themselves good enough coverage at a fair price. The agencies operating the stingrays, using ALPRs to catch people with weed on their way out of states where it's legal, kicking down doors and shooting people's dogs don't have to worry about being subject to it themselves because of the thin blue line. And all these people's salary depend on them not rocking the boat over the fact that they enjoy some perk that is not available to the peasantry at large. If all the bad authoritarian crap society does was done to everyone with at least a token attempt at being impartial we'd do a hell of a lot less of it.
- reaperducer 8y agoThis article is a week old. The timing of it on HN smacks of the discussion from last month based on the NYT article that the Chinese government employs people to patrol internet discussion forums and write "America is just as bad!" posts to distract people every time an article comes out that paints China in a negative light.
- bilbo0s 8y agoIt's probably more advisable just to flag this discussion if you believe it is Chinese, American, European, Russian, liberal, conservative, (whatever else) political propaganda. Of course, most of HN is political propaganda lately, but that's a separate issue.
- rkrzr 8y ago> In Western democracies, police and intelligence agencies are using the same surveillance tools to solve and deter crimes and prevent terrorism (see Technology Quarterly). The results are effective, yet deeply worrying. These claims seem completely unfounded. It always surprises me when well-known outlets like The Economist just make assertions like this, without having any data to back it up. Of course the governments implementing the surveillance regimes will claim that it's effective, but it's the media's job to actually verify the veracity of these claims. Instead they are just parroting this tired old narrative.
- Fricken 8y agoCops surveil, that's their job. Why would the economist need to back this up? There is nothing extraordinary about that claim in any way whatsoever.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago> police and intelligence agencies are using the same surveillance tools to solve and deter crimes and prevent terrorism > Cops surveil, that's their job These statements are not equivalent. No one is disputing that cops surveil people. The question is, are they using the same tools that China is? That's what the person you're respnding to thinks the Economist needs to back up.
- 7VfxmO50yo4y 8y agoI think even that is not entirely accurate. The comment by rkrzr rather was about the tools being effective: > Of course the governments implementing the surveillance regimes will claim that it's effective, but it's the media's job to actually verify the veracity of these claims.
- api 8y agoThe West invented this stuff, though our implementation is less centralized and relies much more heavily on the private sector. The Chinese are just copying it.
- lgleason 8y agoWait until they use this to enforce transgressions against thought crime in the US...
- wu-ikkyu 8y agoThought crime/punishment seems to be increasingly prevalent and strongly enforced by internet mobs and corporate censorship bots
- ommunist 8y agoThis is just different policing tradition. China and to some extent, Russia, have external cages for free individuals inside the cage. The Western tradition grows the cage inside the individual, so it cannot escape "rules", since these are built in. The Western kind of censorship is self-censorship. And it goes deeper than DPI. I am writing this after I started reading A. Gramsci's letters from prison, and got very clear idea how the ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – establishes and maintains its control. Its still there, inside you.
- ommunist 8y agoWell, carrying knife is a criminal offence in Britain, isn't it? Then why the Economist does not analyse a grave situation with personal freedoms in the UK first?