6 ms·

The article misses the context of our generation, in which multiple Western and Eastern governments as an underlying trend have been exercising the same behavio

The article misses the context of our generation, in which multiple Western and Eastern governments as an underlying trend have been exercising the same behaviors. Australia officially banned strong encryption for state surveillance this week. The Unite States got caught in the world's most intrusive global and domestic surveillance effort and buried the news of this through its relationship with the domestic press. Poland repealed its supreme court after upending its government. Israel has been criticized for its domestic assassination program targeting thousands of people a year. The United States has a threat scoring system automatically scoring political, social, economic, and other "risk" data into municipal police departments so that these people can be monitored and managed without a warrant. The fact of the matter is Western nations have been engaging on censorship, surveillance and "perception management" and "strategic communication" (read: propaganda) campaigns at home and around the world for decades. Chinese hackers aren't "Us versus Them". The British _helped_ the Chinese establish a modern propaganda program over the past decade. Where are the British in this article? Overall, disappointed at the narrow view of the article. It can't offer solutions because its hasn't identified the problems.

hangonhn 8y ago
"Chinese hackers aren't "Us versus Them". The British _helped_ the Chinese establish a modern propaganda program over the past decade. Where are the British in this article?" Can you point us to some articles about this? I've never heard of this. It's fascinating!
- bigmonads 8y ago
  Looking for them. I got this from following reports and dialogues from American Think Tanks (primarily the Center for Strategic and International Studies). Essentially over the past decade there's been fairly regular dialogue between the British government and China regarding online, radio and publication public engagement. There's been some British universities, thinktanks and others "accused" of helping China (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/westminster-and-kings-accused-of-helping-chinese-teach-propaganda-g2982z3sj https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/westminster-and-kings-acc...) but from strategy side of the house (at least at CSIS, which is American) there hasn't been a lot of angst or fretting over it. I'll look for some specific CSIS reports.
ctoth 8y ago
New technique: Spot articles mentioning China's bad behavior before they get comments. - Write a comment about how the very top comments will be blatant whataboutism/otherwise pointing out that ... "other people do X too!" - Encrypt and publish the comment. - Wait. - Publish the key. - Look like a time traveler.
uberman 8y ago
You seem to be suggesting that the Chinese should be excused for such attacks because the British somehow helped them establish a propaganda program or that that they should be excused because Poland dismissed it's supreme court. Do you not believe that any state sponsored attack on a non-state entity is inappropriate, or only those conducted by "the West"?
- jacobtwotwo 8y ago
  Can you explain how the op is suggesting that? From my reading, it seems OP is saying that these types of articles need to include the broader context if they're to do any good in educating their readers on the issue at hand. No context interpretation: 'China is the devil we need to stop!' With context: 'China is one of the devils we need to stop!' (natural follow up: What is the common source of these devils?)
  - 51lver 8y ago
    Common theme: Preventing future crime. I think that is wrong. Personally. People should be judged for their past, not their future.
- zhengyi13 8y ago
  I don't think this is quite "whataboutism" (and no, that's not what you said, either), but if I were to speculate about your parent post's intent, it looks like they're suggesting that many more governments than the Chinese are doing this sort of thing, and any solution to this class of problem needs to take in the larger landscape.
  - bigmonads 8y ago
    As the author of the above comment, yes confirmed that is how I intended it.
- bigmonads 8y ago
  No, I don't think this understands my comment.
richardw 8y ago
Every country uses their advantages, but I think you've painted a false equivalence here. Your comment won't get you a reduced Social Credit System score. Nobody's going to come knocking on your door. You can post critiques of Britain, US, EU etc but you'll still be unjailed and alive in the morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
- jacobtwotwo 8y ago
  I think the point is that China is exploiting the same system that other countries created and started exploiting prior, but it is doing so on a larger scale and to a more obvious degree than the others. That is to say, yes, it's a problem, but let's take a look at all the other instances of this type of behavior, so we can work toward a general solution, rather than just saying 'fuck china!'.
- mAEStro-paNDa 8y ago
  That system is a bit more complex than one would perceive. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social...
- throwaway32r5y 8y ago
  I wouldn’t be so sure about that, > One of the few things known about the Kill List is that it’s compiled in part by algorithm. > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
- bigmonads 8y ago
  It will. There's no false equivalence. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/eight-problems-police-threat-scores https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te... But to the broader point: my comment was about much more than social scoring systems.
vokep 8y ago
>The United States has a threat scoring system automatically scoring political, social, economic, and other "risk" data into municipal police departments so that these people can be monitored and managed without a warrant. This wouldn't be surprising if true, but do you have a source to verify this claim?
- bigmonads 8y ago
  Here are some articles to get you started. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/eight-problems-police-threat-scores https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/12093445/US-police-departments-calculate-threat-scores-for-residents-based-on-arrest-records-social-media-posts.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/1209... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c0f6ea0ecd42 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-w... National data from intelligence agencies are provided to municipal police through "fusion centers". Different cities provide their own data into these centers (e.g. Seattle recently built and tore down a city-wide camera surveillance system) which are consumed in the other direction. Threat scoring software use various data feeds including those from social media platforms.
ilovetux 8y ago
I agree, but at the bottom of the article it states that the article is an excerpt from a book about the great firewall. From this context, I can understand the scope of the article. An article centered around your statements here would be interesting to read.

hangonhn 8y ago

"Chinese hackers aren't "Us versus Them". The British _helped_ the Chinese establish a modern propaganda program over the past decade. Where are the British in this article?" Can you point us to some articles about this? I've never heard of this. It's fascinating!

bigmonads 8y ago
Looking for them. I got this from following reports and dialogues from American Think Tanks (primarily the Center for Strategic and International Studies). Essentially over the past decade there's been fairly regular dialogue between the British government and China regarding online, radio and publication public engagement. There's been some British universities, thinktanks and others "accused" of helping China (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/westminster-and-kings-accused-of-helping-chinese-teach-propaganda-g2982z3sj https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/westminster-and-kings-acc...) but from strategy side of the house (at least at CSIS, which is American) there hasn't been a lot of angst or fretting over it. I'll look for some specific CSIS reports.

ctoth 8y ago

New technique: Spot articles mentioning China's bad behavior before they get comments. - Write a comment about how the very top comments will be blatant whataboutism/otherwise pointing out that ... "other people do X too!" - Encrypt and publish the comment. - Wait. - Publish the key. - Look like a time traveler.

uberman 8y ago

You seem to be suggesting that the Chinese should be excused for such attacks because the British somehow helped them establish a propaganda program or that that they should be excused because Poland dismissed it's supreme court. Do you not believe that any state sponsored attack on a non-state entity is inappropriate, or only those conducted by "the West"?

jacobtwotwo 8y ago
Can you explain how the op is suggesting that? From my reading, it seems OP is saying that these types of articles need to include the broader context if they're to do any good in educating their readers on the issue at hand. No context interpretation: 'China is the devil we need to stop!' With context: 'China is one of the devils we need to stop!' (natural follow up: What is the common source of these devils?)
- 51lver 8y ago
  Common theme: Preventing future crime. I think that is wrong. Personally. People should be judged for their past, not their future.
zhengyi13 8y ago
I don't think this is quite "whataboutism" (and no, that's not what you said, either), but if I were to speculate about your parent post's intent, it looks like they're suggesting that many more governments than the Chinese are doing this sort of thing, and any solution to this class of problem needs to take in the larger landscape.
- bigmonads 8y ago
  As the author of the above comment, yes confirmed that is how I intended it.
bigmonads 8y ago
No, I don't think this understands my comment.

richardw 8y ago

Every country uses their advantages, but I think you've painted a false equivalence here. Your comment won't get you a reduced Social Credit System score. Nobody's going to come knocking on your door. You can post critiques of Britain, US, EU etc but you'll still be unjailed and alive in the morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

jacobtwotwo 8y ago
I think the point is that China is exploiting the same system that other countries created and started exploiting prior, but it is doing so on a larger scale and to a more obvious degree than the others. That is to say, yes, it's a problem, but let's take a look at all the other instances of this type of behavior, so we can work toward a general solution, rather than just saying 'fuck china!'.
mAEStro-paNDa 8y ago
That system is a bit more complex than one would perceive. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social...
throwaway32r5y 8y ago
I wouldn’t be so sure about that, > One of the few things known about the Kill List is that it’s compiled in part by algorithm. > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
bigmonads 8y ago
It will. There's no false equivalence. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/eight-problems-police-threat-scores https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te... But to the broader point: my comment was about much more than social scoring systems.

vokep 8y ago

>The United States has a threat scoring system automatically scoring political, social, economic, and other "risk" data into municipal police departments so that these people can be monitored and managed without a warrant. This wouldn't be surprising if true, but do you have a source to verify this claim?

bigmonads 8y ago
Here are some articles to get you started. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/eight-problems-police-threat-scores https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/12093445/US-police-departments-calculate-threat-scores-for-residents-based-on-arrest-records-social-media-posts.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/1209... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c0f6ea0ecd42 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-w... National data from intelligence agencies are provided to municipal police through "fusion centers". Different cities provide their own data into these centers (e.g. Seattle recently built and tore down a city-wide camera surveillance system) which are consumed in the other direction. Threat scoring software use various data feeds including those from social media platforms.

ilovetux 8y ago

I agree, but at the bottom of the article it states that the article is an excerpt from a book about the great firewall. From this context, I can understand the scope of the article. An article centered around your statements here would be interesting to read.