14 ms·

This is really good for the consumers, since the Chinese are free to innovate instead of waiting for Intel. Lately they have been coming out with really good t

This is really good for the consumers, since the Chinese are free to innovate instead of waiting for Intel. Lately they have been coming out with really good things. The Matebook X Pro is amazing and can easily compete with Dells latest offerings, and Deepin Linux 15.6 has its own very modern user interface that makes it very enjoyable to use. Finally a linux distribution with a good sense of western style and performance, and it comes from China of all places. Its important to be careful of spyware however, but that goes for American software as well. There is plenty of evidence that NSA is spying on everybody, and probably has access to most Americans emails and web habits already.

simonh 8y ago
Well if the US does it too, that's alright then. Caveat, I'm a European (well a Brit, so almost European) and I'm appalled by US and yes British violations of privacy and surveillance overreach. Things like the threats to cripple or ban private use of strong encryption are appallingly damaging and misguided. However nations with an elected government accountable to the people doing this stuff is one thing. We still have the right and mechanisms to protest and these protests have frequently made a real difference. strong encryption of private communications is till legal and threats to it have gone nowhere. The fact that governments from multiple political groups, in multiple countries have looked at this and decided that the benefits to their electorate outweigh the dangers offers at least some comfort. It's at least possible that they are right, although I would prefer much stronger checks and balances. Pervasive active harvesting, analysis, intervention, censorship and subsequent punishments of 'private' communication by a totalitarian state, with the open goal of enforcing ideological obedience is not the same thing, and it's not ok. At all.
- helpme420 8y ago
  Chinks have these kind of behaviours in their culture - it is wrong for us to assume that they are not fine with it.
- candiodari 8y ago
  The issue with your comment is that it's absurd. You are complaining about US overreach, so presumably your basis for judgement should be the situation in the UK. Does the UK do mass-surveillance of it's own and foreign citizens, on UK soil and outside ? Yes [1] Strong encryption of private communications is NOT legal in the UK. You have to give the police access when they request it and you cannot use the rights you have in the US to avoid giving this access [2]. (unless you consider strong encryption stuff where you have to make all keys available to the police, border guard, gchq, foreign intelligence services, and others still strong encryption. I don't) The other huge difference is that the UK refuses to be accountable for their mass surveillance afterwards. In the US a big demand is that there is a paper trail for spying, to the person being spied upon. Granted, this may be buried in something like a phone contract for mass-targeting. When they target you specifically, however, you will be notified (afterwards, if the judge so decides, but can even be beforehand), and failure to do this makes the spying illegal. Furthermore, this gives private individuals and companies the option to sue to have the police/FBI/NSA/DEA/... explain themselves (and more generally the US state). In the UK however: 1) No notification is given to the person being spied upon. The state just does it. 2) There is no recourse. If you were spied upon because a police officer wanted to be your boyfriend and needed to know where your actual boyfried was to beat him up, that's legal. [3] (yes, I realize these guys got fired, however, their actions were ruled legal) 3) If anyone in the UK takes the side of the person being spied upon, whether an internet provider, an application provider (ie. outlook.com/fb/gmail/...), they will be vigorously pursued and punished for that. This is highly illegal. 4) The UK has cooperation treaties (ie. EU treaties, and others) that let police officers in ~70 countries spy on British citizens (I heard that these treaties were used to install a phone tap, yes really, on Angela Merkel's phone. Yes, that Angela Merkel. The utter incompetence is baffling in it's scope. And yes, the guy (an officer) did this as a joke and got fired for it) So to say I don't understand your criticism here massively understates the situation ... Obviously, as a UK citizen you've got some more local problems to sort out before you criticize the US. In reality, the UK/EU is pushing these news articles and blowing up cooperation for EXACTLY the opposite reason : they don't want increased privacy for people, they want to further reduce it. They want the US to honor spying requests without respecting US law. They don't want Facebook to ask "can you explain why this is really necessary" when a police officer is asking for the exact location of EU citizens. They don't want to give reasons, and they certainly don't want the person to be told afterwards (and potentially sue them). They want full FB and instagram chat logs in every divorce case. They want ever single email a person ever sent in every commercial dispute. They want every police force and secret service in Europe to have access to every Europeans every mail, immediately, with zero oversight or tracking, and especially without any paper trail available to their victims. THAT's what Europe is fighting for. THAT's what they're calling "US surveillance overreach". Well, that, and the fact that the US successfully recorded some rather high level conversations between Merkel and Macron and managed to get caught doing it. In other words, they're incompetent, and angry. And of course, that's the US's fault (despite, of course, that Germany was also caught attempting to bug Obama, and caught having successfully bugged several high level officials before getting caught). And of course, they're angry for Trump getting elected (if you don't believe me, watch this [4], and listen to the questions). That's why there is this campaign of "the US is horrible on privacy". There is "no cooperation". But, sadly, the US is the champion of privacy in this particular fight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/traveler-who-refused-to-give-device-passwords-to-police-found-guilty-of-obstruction-in-uk-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/traveler-who-refused-to-gi... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371833/20-police-officers-dismissed-using-force-spy-neighbours-partners.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371833/20-police-of... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70LrlzrkNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70LrlzrkNk
- Synaesthesia 8y ago
  The US government is somewhat accountable to the public. Their spying agencies however are not. They never have been, have always operated in secret. The public certainly wasn’t consulted on the mass surveillance program.
  - 794CD01 8y ago
    The spying agencies are as accountable as any other agencies. They do what they do at the behest of the public's elected representatives.
    - trendia 8y ago
      Did the Senate ask the CIA to spy on them? "An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program. " https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intellige...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - simplecomplex 8y ago
        Congress can vote to get rid of the CIA, or stop them from spying. The CIA exists because of an act of Congress and at the pleasure of Congress, which consists of elected representatives .
        geezerjay 8y ago
        You just gave a non-answer to try to avoid answering it. Public agencies such as the CIA are politically armoured against any attempt to get rid of it. These organizations aren't accountable nor are they at the service of the US congress.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  As democratic as the US is or isn't, its government does not answer to me. China one also doesn't. So, what difference does it make? If I'm developing some kind on tech, both have been caught using their state agencies to do industrial spying; if I'm active in some push for some non-mainstream activism (like, abolishing copyrights), both have done out of jurisdiction enforcement of their policies, and there isn't much difference on means either. Personally, I'd imagine China spying on me is a smaller risk than the US, since my country is more under political influence of the US. But whatever you do, you will have to protect or subject yourself to government spying, thus there isn't any big difference.
  - simonh 8y ago
    The difference is how that surveillance is used. Right now you my not have any personal contact with China, so you might not care what the do to their own citizens. I might have taken the same stance in 2001 before meeting the girl who would later become my wife, who was a Chinese citizen. Since then I’ve travelled to China for work, completely independently of any family connection. A relative, child or grandchild of yours could work in China, marry a Chinese partner. I could go on. Even aside from that, China is actively exporting their political and economic model all over the world. They are using economic investments and financial grants to companies, institutions and cultural organisations as leverage to stifle criticism, and silence factual reporting of events in China all over the world, and almost certainly in your own country too.
    - addicted 8y ago
      For better or worse (I’d argue worse but that’s irrelevant) China has explicitly stayed out of foreign countries’s politics. That’s one reason why so many dictators and corrupt governments are willing to work with them. China, unlike the US or the EU, has decided the political oppression a country’s leader practices is none of their concerns. They just want to do business.
  - untog 8y ago
    > As democratic as the US is or isn't, its government does not answer to me. China one also doesn't. So, what difference does it make? That seems like an absolutely absurd comparison. The US government is elected, if enough of the population cared about the issue (and who knows, as it gets worse, they might) the government can be held accountable at the ballot box. The same is in no way true in China.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  The difference is, I don't think China has the reach the U.S. has, (if you're outside China).
  - cdiddy2 8y ago
    maybe not in software, but in hardware they certainly have a lot of reach
- igravious 8y ago
  > I'm a European (well a Brit, so almost European) Wow, that Brexit is really taking a toll on your collective psyche, isn't it? :) https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/isbritaineuropean https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/isbritaineuropea...
Arn_Thor 8y ago
Spyware: therein lies the rub. As a civilian I suppose I'm not a target. But if I ever expected to handle classified, sensitive or even just politically compromising material with my device I would never go for a Chinese brand. Sure, the NSA gets its grubby fingers in where it wants.. But China's surveillance engine has the heft, sophistication and motivation to collect all the data it can. Every piece of silicone could be compromised. It's also much more likely to come back and bite you in the form of stolen IP, a visa ban, or online harassment and censorship than US and European surveillance operations.
- alexktz 8y ago
  What modern tech product can you buy that isn't a potato which hasn't, at some stage in manufacture, been through China?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Or, indeed, what modern tech product has not been compromised by the NSA? People are being a little naive. The US gets its "grubby" hands on every little thing you do, as does China. The question is not, "Which 'grubby' hands do I wish to allow to do my deep body cavity search?" But rather, "Why, exactly, do I need to submit to deep body cavity searches by 'grubby' hands at all?"
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      I think this claim about the NSA requires actual evidence.
      - swebs 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
      - your-nanny 8y ago
        on HN you get down voted for asking for evidence. two clains were made: * that the NSA as compromised all major tech * the us gets it's grubby hands on all your data in support of which no evidence was presented. a user kindly linked me to a Wikipedia page on PRISM. However, that program is only ISP data, requires a warrant for domestic purposes.
IntelAMDVia 8y ago
The difference is China uses spyware to steal from anyone who has access to economically valuable information. That's every engineer in the world. US does not seem to steal for economic purposes at all. Well at least not on the same scale.
- rurban 8y ago
  Then you haven't read any of the various books about the CIA. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" or "Inside the Company - CIA diary" make a good read. It's only about economic purposes. On a much larger scale than China.
  - IntelAMDVia 8y ago
    I have not read those books. It sounds the CIA pressuring third world nations to do things not in their economic interests. I don't support that. That is bad but different to stealing technology using hidden back doors which China reportedly does. I have no evidence either way. But pressuring third world nations to do things not in their economic interests is not that different to what the One Belt One Road program is doing using loans on uneconomic projects. Both are bad but US does not seem to steal technology through hacking like China does. I am not sure why
    - glenndebacker 8y ago
      "Both are bad but US does not seem to steal technology through hacking like China does. I am not sure why" Maybe not through hacking but historical a lot of the industrial revolution that happened in the US was by means of "stealing" British technology, improving on it and don't have any regards for their patents at that time. There is really some irony somewhere in there.
      - IntelAMDVia 8y ago
        I have heard that was not state sponsored but people memorizing schematics. I am not sure though. I am interested in learning more. China does innovate. But it is a nation sponsoring technology stealing on a huge scale. I don't think USA ever did that. I am happy to be proved wrong.
TheArcane 8y ago
> but that goes for American software as well. Exactly. It's surprising that there's a big hue and cry over Chinese spyware (the Lenovo episode) while the US's NSA has been proven to possess know-how to even spy on leaders of other powerful developed nations, and destabilize a nation's nuclear program with just malware.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  That's sheer proof of the effectiveness of US's propaganda machine.
  - jexah 8y ago
    I think it's a difference in belief. Do you prefer American culture and values or Chinese culture and values? Which would you rather protect?
    - andai 8y ago
      I'll need to think about this a lot more, but I agree Western spying is currently by far the lesser of the two evils.
      - beamatronic 8y ago
        The ultimate goal of Western spying comes down to these two things: 1. Preventing another 9/11 2. Selling advertising
        icantdrive55 8y ago
        3. In the very near future, it will be used to identify homeless individuals, and harass them. I don't believe they will ever try to help them in most counties. (I just have a feeling?) 4. It will be used to collect fees/fines in a more efficient, immediate fashion. 5. It will be used by tax authorities. 6. It will be used by the INS. 7. It will be used by stores to prevent theft. (Yea--great, but you have a misdemeanor shop lifting conviction in high school that prevents you from entering a department store in the future?) 8. It will be used to collect fees/fines in an immediate fashion. Fees, and fines that are just increasing yearly. 9. It will be used to prevent people with DUI's from entering bars. Yea--hooray, but there's so many dubious DUI's issued for Revenue/fines--oops safety? 10. It will be used by banks to detect SMURF's/suspicious money. (Cops will be able to show up at banks, and take the "dirty" money before you get to the counter? I still in shock asset confiscation is still copacetic. I am literally in fear of carrying a few grand in cash--crazy?) 11. Certain Bible Belt states will use facial data in divorce proceedings. In Missouri, if you can prove with pictures your spouse was in the company of other women; the judge is pretty much on your side. Not all states are No Fault, like CA. This is not the society I want to live in. My only hope is they will treat the wealthy, and the rest of us equally, but we all know the wealthy will have the money to fight the system, while the rest of us will just be harassed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
phyller 8y ago
Comment about not posting irrelevant inflammatory statements removed and turned into a submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490716
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Feels like that HN link a few weeks ago about how China employs tens of thousands of people to derail online discussions that are critical of China, often strawmanning the U.S., and the E.U. instead. Right now on HN two of the top five discussions have been derailed in this manner. Curious.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    "Everyone I don't like is a foreign shill."
  - paradite 8y ago
    I don't want to derail this even further, just want to offer a different point of view. I'm a Chinese citizen, and ever since I started reading HN a few years ago, it feels like the media and comments in general are mostly negative towards China, or specifically to Chinese government. In rare occasions you have people trying to offer some different perspectives from someone who lived in China (like 1 out of 10 comments), but a large percentage of them get downvoted. This has not changed at all. So really, if there were a propaganda effort, it had failed miserably. The audience on HN just don't buy pro-China propaganda (for better or worse). The ironic part about your argument is that whenever there is a positive news about China (like this one), it quickly derails into criticism of China.
    - rdlecler1 8y ago
      There’s some scary things going on in China. The fact you couldn’t have these discussions in China is one and so I see HN as erring I’m the side of skepticism.

simonh 8y ago

Well if the US does it too, that's alright then. Caveat, I'm a European (well a Brit, so almost European) and I'm appalled by US and yes British violations of privacy and surveillance overreach. Things like the threats to cripple or ban private use of strong encryption are appallingly damaging and misguided. However nations with an elected government accountable to the people doing this stuff is one thing. We still have the right and mechanisms to protest and these protests have frequently made a real difference. strong encryption of private communications is till legal and threats to it have gone nowhere. The fact that governments from multiple political groups, in multiple countries have looked at this and decided that the benefits to their electorate outweigh the dangers offers at least some comfort. It's at least possible that they are right, although I would prefer much stronger checks and balances. Pervasive active harvesting, analysis, intervention, censorship and subsequent punishments of 'private' communication by a totalitarian state, with the open goal of enforcing ideological obedience is not the same thing, and it's not ok. At all.

helpme420 8y ago
Chinks have these kind of behaviours in their culture - it is wrong for us to assume that they are not fine with it.
candiodari 8y ago
The issue with your comment is that it's absurd. You are complaining about US overreach, so presumably your basis for judgement should be the situation in the UK. Does the UK do mass-surveillance of it's own and foreign citizens, on UK soil and outside ? Yes [1] Strong encryption of private communications is NOT legal in the UK. You have to give the police access when they request it and you cannot use the rights you have in the US to avoid giving this access [2]. (unless you consider strong encryption stuff where you have to make all keys available to the police, border guard, gchq, foreign intelligence services, and others still strong encryption. I don't) The other huge difference is that the UK refuses to be accountable for their mass surveillance afterwards. In the US a big demand is that there is a paper trail for spying, to the person being spied upon. Granted, this may be buried in something like a phone contract for mass-targeting. When they target you specifically, however, you will be notified (afterwards, if the judge so decides, but can even be beforehand), and failure to do this makes the spying illegal. Furthermore, this gives private individuals and companies the option to sue to have the police/FBI/NSA/DEA/... explain themselves (and more generally the US state). In the UK however: 1) No notification is given to the person being spied upon. The state just does it. 2) There is no recourse. If you were spied upon because a police officer wanted to be your boyfriend and needed to know where your actual boyfried was to beat him up, that's legal. [3] (yes, I realize these guys got fired, however, their actions were ruled legal) 3) If anyone in the UK takes the side of the person being spied upon, whether an internet provider, an application provider (ie. outlook.com/fb/gmail/...), they will be vigorously pursued and punished for that. This is highly illegal. 4) The UK has cooperation treaties (ie. EU treaties, and others) that let police officers in ~70 countries spy on British citizens (I heard that these treaties were used to install a phone tap, yes really, on Angela Merkel's phone. Yes, that Angela Merkel. The utter incompetence is baffling in it's scope. And yes, the guy (an officer) did this as a joke and got fired for it) So to say I don't understand your criticism here massively understates the situation ... Obviously, as a UK citizen you've got some more local problems to sort out before you criticize the US. In reality, the UK/EU is pushing these news articles and blowing up cooperation for EXACTLY the opposite reason : they don't want increased privacy for people, they want to further reduce it. They want the US to honor spying requests without respecting US law. They don't want Facebook to ask "can you explain why this is really necessary" when a police officer is asking for the exact location of EU citizens. They don't want to give reasons, and they certainly don't want the person to be told afterwards (and potentially sue them). They want full FB and instagram chat logs in every divorce case. They want ever single email a person ever sent in every commercial dispute. They want every police force and secret service in Europe to have access to every Europeans every mail, immediately, with zero oversight or tracking, and especially without any paper trail available to their victims. THAT's what Europe is fighting for. THAT's what they're calling "US surveillance overreach". Well, that, and the fact that the US successfully recorded some rather high level conversations between Merkel and Macron and managed to get caught doing it. In other words, they're incompetent, and angry. And of course, that's the US's fault (despite, of course, that Germany was also caught attempting to bug Obama, and caught having successfully bugged several high level officials before getting caught). And of course, they're angry for Trump getting elected (if you don't believe me, watch this [4], and listen to the questions). That's why there is this campaign of "the US is horrible on privacy". There is "no cooperation". But, sadly, the US is the champion of privacy in this particular fight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/traveler-who-refused-to-give-device-passwords-to-police-found-guilty-of-obstruction-in-uk-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/traveler-who-refused-to-gi... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371833/20-police-officers-dismissed-using-force-spy-neighbours-partners.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371833/20-police-of... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70LrlzrkNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y70LrlzrkNk
Synaesthesia 8y ago
The US government is somewhat accountable to the public. Their spying agencies however are not. They never have been, have always operated in secret. The public certainly wasn’t consulted on the mass surveillance program.
- 794CD01 8y ago
  The spying agencies are as accountable as any other agencies. They do what they do at the behest of the public's elected representatives.
  - trendia 8y ago
    Did the Senate ask the CIA to spy on them? "An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program. " https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intellige...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - simplecomplex 8y ago
      Congress can vote to get rid of the CIA, or stop them from spying. The CIA exists because of an act of Congress and at the pleasure of Congress, which consists of elected representatives .
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        You just gave a non-answer to try to avoid answering it. Public agencies such as the CIA are politically armoured against any attempt to get rid of it. These organizations aren't accountable nor are they at the service of the US congress.
marcosdumay 8y ago
As democratic as the US is or isn't, its government does not answer to me. China one also doesn't. So, what difference does it make? If I'm developing some kind on tech, both have been caught using their state agencies to do industrial spying; if I'm active in some push for some non-mainstream activism (like, abolishing copyrights), both have done out of jurisdiction enforcement of their policies, and there isn't much difference on means either. Personally, I'd imagine China spying on me is a smaller risk than the US, since my country is more under political influence of the US. But whatever you do, you will have to protect or subject yourself to government spying, thus there isn't any big difference.
- simonh 8y ago
  The difference is how that surveillance is used. Right now you my not have any personal contact with China, so you might not care what the do to their own citizens. I might have taken the same stance in 2001 before meeting the girl who would later become my wife, who was a Chinese citizen. Since then I’ve travelled to China for work, completely independently of any family connection. A relative, child or grandchild of yours could work in China, marry a Chinese partner. I could go on. Even aside from that, China is actively exporting their political and economic model all over the world. They are using economic investments and financial grants to companies, institutions and cultural organisations as leverage to stifle criticism, and silence factual reporting of events in China all over the world, and almost certainly in your own country too.
  - addicted 8y ago
    For better or worse (I’d argue worse but that’s irrelevant) China has explicitly stayed out of foreign countries’s politics. That’s one reason why so many dictators and corrupt governments are willing to work with them. China, unlike the US or the EU, has decided the political oppression a country’s leader practices is none of their concerns. They just want to do business.
- untog 8y ago
  > As democratic as the US is or isn't, its government does not answer to me. China one also doesn't. So, what difference does it make? That seems like an absolutely absurd comparison. The US government is elected, if enough of the population cared about the issue (and who knows, as it gets worse, they might) the government can be held accountable at the ballot box. The same is in no way true in China.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
The difference is, I don't think China has the reach the U.S. has, (if you're outside China).
- cdiddy2 8y ago
  maybe not in software, but in hardware they certainly have a lot of reach
igravious 8y ago
> I'm a European (well a Brit, so almost European) Wow, that Brexit is really taking a toll on your collective psyche, isn't it? :) https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/isbritaineuropean https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/isbritaineuropea...

Arn_Thor 8y ago

Spyware: therein lies the rub. As a civilian I suppose I'm not a target. But if I ever expected to handle classified, sensitive or even just politically compromising material with my device I would never go for a Chinese brand. Sure, the NSA gets its grubby fingers in where it wants.. But China's surveillance engine has the heft, sophistication and motivation to collect all the data it can. Every piece of silicone could be compromised. It's also much more likely to come back and bite you in the form of stolen IP, a visa ban, or online harassment and censorship than US and European surveillance operations.

alexktz 8y ago
What modern tech product can you buy that isn't a potato which hasn't, at some stage in manufacture, been through China?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Or, indeed, what modern tech product has not been compromised by the NSA? People are being a little naive. The US gets its "grubby" hands on every little thing you do, as does China. The question is not, "Which 'grubby' hands do I wish to allow to do my deep body cavity search?" But rather, "Why, exactly, do I need to submit to deep body cavity searches by 'grubby' hands at all?"
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    I think this claim about the NSA requires actual evidence.
    - swebs 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      on HN you get down voted for asking for evidence. two clains were made: * that the NSA as compromised all major tech * the us gets it's grubby hands on all your data in support of which no evidence was presented. a user kindly linked me to a Wikipedia page on PRISM. However, that program is only ISP data, requires a warrant for domestic purposes.

IntelAMDVia 8y ago

The difference is China uses spyware to steal from anyone who has access to economically valuable information. That's every engineer in the world. US does not seem to steal for economic purposes at all. Well at least not on the same scale.

rurban 8y ago
Then you haven't read any of the various books about the CIA. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" or "Inside the Company - CIA diary" make a good read. It's only about economic purposes. On a much larger scale than China.
- IntelAMDVia 8y ago
  I have not read those books. It sounds the CIA pressuring third world nations to do things not in their economic interests. I don't support that. That is bad but different to stealing technology using hidden back doors which China reportedly does. I have no evidence either way. But pressuring third world nations to do things not in their economic interests is not that different to what the One Belt One Road program is doing using loans on uneconomic projects. Both are bad but US does not seem to steal technology through hacking like China does. I am not sure why
  - glenndebacker 8y ago
    "Both are bad but US does not seem to steal technology through hacking like China does. I am not sure why" Maybe not through hacking but historical a lot of the industrial revolution that happened in the US was by means of "stealing" British technology, improving on it and don't have any regards for their patents at that time. There is really some irony somewhere in there.
    - IntelAMDVia 8y ago
      I have heard that was not state sponsored but people memorizing schematics. I am not sure though. I am interested in learning more. China does innovate. But it is a nation sponsoring technology stealing on a huge scale. I don't think USA ever did that. I am happy to be proved wrong.

TheArcane 8y ago

> but that goes for American software as well. Exactly. It's surprising that there's a big hue and cry over Chinese spyware (the Lenovo episode) while the US's NSA has been proven to possess know-how to even spy on leaders of other powerful developed nations, and destabilize a nation's nuclear program with just malware.

mikec3010 8y ago
That's sheer proof of the effectiveness of US's propaganda machine.
- jexah 8y ago
  I think it's a difference in belief. Do you prefer American culture and values or Chinese culture and values? Which would you rather protect?
  - andai 8y ago
    I'll need to think about this a lot more, but I agree Western spying is currently by far the lesser of the two evils.
    - beamatronic 8y ago
      The ultimate goal of Western spying comes down to these two things: 1. Preventing another 9/11 2. Selling advertising
      - icantdrive55 8y ago
        3. In the very near future, it will be used to identify homeless individuals, and harass them. I don't believe they will ever try to help them in most counties. (I just have a feeling?) 4. It will be used to collect fees/fines in a more efficient, immediate fashion. 5. It will be used by tax authorities. 6. It will be used by the INS. 7. It will be used by stores to prevent theft. (Yea--great, but you have a misdemeanor shop lifting conviction in high school that prevents you from entering a department store in the future?) 8. It will be used to collect fees/fines in an immediate fashion. Fees, and fines that are just increasing yearly. 9. It will be used to prevent people with DUI's from entering bars. Yea--hooray, but there's so many dubious DUI's issued for Revenue/fines--oops safety? 10. It will be used by banks to detect SMURF's/suspicious money. (Cops will be able to show up at banks, and take the "dirty" money before you get to the counter? I still in shock asset confiscation is still copacetic. I am literally in fear of carrying a few grand in cash--crazy?) 11. Certain Bible Belt states will use facial data in divorce proceedings. In Missouri, if you can prove with pictures your spouse was in the company of other women; the judge is pretty much on your side. Not all states are No Fault, like CA. This is not the society I want to live in. My only hope is they will treat the wealthy, and the rest of us equally, but we all know the wealthy will have the money to fight the system, while the rest of us will just be harassed.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

phyller 8y ago

Comment about not posting irrelevant inflammatory statements removed and turned into a submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490716

reaperducer 8y ago
Feels like that HN link a few weeks ago about how China employs tens of thousands of people to derail online discussions that are critical of China, often strawmanning the U.S., and the E.U. instead. Right now on HN two of the top five discussions have been derailed in this manner. Curious.
- monocasa 8y ago
  "Everyone I don't like is a foreign shill."
- paradite 8y ago
  I don't want to derail this even further, just want to offer a different point of view. I'm a Chinese citizen, and ever since I started reading HN a few years ago, it feels like the media and comments in general are mostly negative towards China, or specifically to Chinese government. In rare occasions you have people trying to offer some different perspectives from someone who lived in China (like 1 out of 10 comments), but a large percentage of them get downvoted. This has not changed at all. So really, if there were a propaganda effort, it had failed miserably. The audience on HN just don't buy pro-China propaganda (for better or worse). The ironic part about your argument is that whenever there is a positive news about China (like this one), it quickly derails into criticism of China.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    There’s some scary things going on in China. The fact you couldn’t have these discussions in China is one and so I see HN as erring I’m the side of skepticism.