3 ms·

If Xinjiang were under public surveillance, with the results accessible to the whole world, the Chinese government might tread more carefully. As is, one of th

by ethbro 8y ago

If Xinjiang were under public surveillance, with the results accessible to the whole world, the Chinese government might tread more carefully. As is, one of their biggest enablers is being able to effectively deny access to the area. Edit: I'd note this is generally an effective tactic of oppressive regimes. It takes dedicated, brave, well-funded people to access an area that's even semi-denied. Much less regularly. And the internet / world's attention is fickle. No updates, no photos, no video? No one pushing for justice.

notahacker 8y ago
> If Xinjiang were under public surveillance, with the results accessible to the whole world, the Chinese government might tread more carefully. Not really. The world already has a pretty good idea that China has incarcerated millions of people for what wouldn't be considered offences or adequate standards of proof in the West as part of wider political struggles. And livestreaming is going to end at the point of arrest. A system tracking the full history of every one of those millions of individuals' movements prior to incarceration would add no useful insight into the nuances of the conflict or rhetorical weight to arguments to take any form of action against the Chinese government, but would be exceptionally useful to helping said government in tracking down anyone that has ever interacted with $PersonOfInterest or visited $Place. There's a reason that people campaigning for the world to take interest in human rights issues in their region do so by broadcasting explanations of their cause and how brave and inspiring their missing friends are rather than broadcasting their whereabouts.
- ethbro 8y ago
  How many people are actually detained? How long they're detained for? What requirements have been made for the population when they're not detained (e.g. submitting biometric data)? These are all questions to which the answer is at best murky. Facts answering these questions would empower opponents of Chinese oppression. Whether that would be enough to offset the privacy issues is a fair debate. But it's not like you're losing anything the Chinese panopticon hasn't already taken away.
- david_at 8y ago
  You're looking at something and calling it 'surveillance' because you don't yet have a word to describe the entire thing. It's too new so you see it through your 'old eyes'. You noticed there was a camera involved and you knew what that was so you ran with it. It's the proverbial blind man whose hand has happened to land on the tusk and he tells his companions, "It's a spear!". You're not seeing the whole elephant because you've never seen one. It benefits you when other people have knowledge about the world. It benefits you if other people have the knowledge to drive safely. It benefits you that your neighbours have a basic knowledge of germ theory and don't throw their sewage in the streets like medieval peasants. It benefits you that your fellow voters have at least a basic education and can make somewhat informed decisions. It benefits you that medical knowledge isn't locked away in some vault in Alexandria but it's in the mind of the doctor whose preventing an outbreak of some disease you happen to be susceptible to. Did you not read the things I was able to learn just from my first node? We can give so many people free access to information that would push back darkness, fear and superstition just a little further. And these people would do and build things that would make your life better. So instead of channelling the Archbishop of Canterbury telling Bible translator John Wycliffe that too much knowledge will corrupt the commoners, open your eyes.

by ethbro 8y ago

notahacker 8y ago

> If Xinjiang were under public surveillance, with the results accessible to the whole world, the Chinese government might tread more carefully. Not really. The world already has a pretty good idea that China has incarcerated millions of people for what wouldn't be considered offences or adequate standards of proof in the West as part of wider political struggles. And livestreaming is going to end at the point of arrest. A system tracking the full history of every one of those millions of individuals' movements prior to incarceration would add no useful insight into the nuances of the conflict or rhetorical weight to arguments to take any form of action against the Chinese government, but would be exceptionally useful to helping said government in tracking down anyone that has ever interacted with $PersonOfInterest or visited $Place. There's a reason that people campaigning for the world to take interest in human rights issues in their region do so by broadcasting explanations of their cause and how brave and inspiring their missing friends are rather than broadcasting their whereabouts.

ethbro 8y ago
How many people are actually detained? How long they're detained for? What requirements have been made for the population when they're not detained (e.g. submitting biometric data)? These are all questions to which the answer is at best murky. Facts answering these questions would empower opponents of Chinese oppression. Whether that would be enough to offset the privacy issues is a fair debate. But it's not like you're losing anything the Chinese panopticon hasn't already taken away.
david_at 8y ago
You're looking at something and calling it 'surveillance' because you don't yet have a word to describe the entire thing. It's too new so you see it through your 'old eyes'. You noticed there was a camera involved and you knew what that was so you ran with it. It's the proverbial blind man whose hand has happened to land on the tusk and he tells his companions, "It's a spear!". You're not seeing the whole elephant because you've never seen one. It benefits you when other people have knowledge about the world. It benefits you if other people have the knowledge to drive safely. It benefits you that your neighbours have a basic knowledge of germ theory and don't throw their sewage in the streets like medieval peasants. It benefits you that your fellow voters have at least a basic education and can make somewhat informed decisions. It benefits you that medical knowledge isn't locked away in some vault in Alexandria but it's in the mind of the doctor whose preventing an outbreak of some disease you happen to be susceptible to. Did you not read the things I was able to learn just from my first node? We can give so many people free access to information that would push back darkness, fear and superstition just a little further. And these people would do and build things that would make your life better. So instead of channelling the Archbishop of Canterbury telling Bible translator John Wycliffe that too much knowledge will corrupt the commoners, open your eyes.