7 ms·

One issue is that public attitudes to doxxing vary between places. What is unacceptable in America may be considered more normal elsewhere. In this specific si

One issue is that public attitudes to doxxing vary between places. What is unacceptable in America may be considered more normal elsewhere. In this specific situation there’s a pretty obvious power imbalance where the public do not wear masks and the authorities would be able to track them down and oppress them later (or just do what they currently do and grab them from the streets at the time). The threat of unmasking is one of the few things the people have to use against the authorities: when a policeman has his mask removed he will typically run away for fear of being identified. (The only other things they have are sheer numbers and the moral superiority of being basically peaceful against a violent government). A similar argument about law enforcement safety was used by Apple to remove a map app in Hong Kong which showed people where large groups of police (and eg tear gas releases or which small coloured banners announcing illegal assemblies had been raised). The claim was that the app could be used to target individual policemen even though it only showed larger units and mainly helped people to get around the city without getting gassed by the police. Meanwhile the Chinese government were funding a site offering money for doxxing protestors but it wasn’t in the App Store so I guess it was ok.

powerapple 6y ago
the site you are referring to in your last sentence is not funded by Chinese government, but by a previous governor of Hong Kong (Liang I believe).
- antris 6y ago
  But isn't the former governor pretty much a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party though?
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    nah they're still a person, the conversion to puppet proved more difficult than expected
    - MiscIdeaMaker99 6y ago
      ROFL
- 188201 6y ago
  Let's be realistic here. Why Liang would fund a site like that. Either one of the reason: CCP ordered that, or he wants to show loyalty and earn credit to CCP. Either case, it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened and didn't ban it. And Liang is vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. What it means is he is not officially CCP but a very trusted person to be included as decision maker of CCP.
  - powerapple 6y ago
    I don't think I like the argument of "it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened". CCP is a party with 90 million members, so if you argue Liang act as a member of CCP, I think I am okay with that. I don't know should we be 'realistic' or should we be 'accurate' when we make a point. This is a strange time.
    - 188201 6y ago
      It is an interesting point so I can discuss a little bit. Seems people didn't understand the implication of an autocratic government. When people tried to avoid government funded software, let say a communication app, what is the reason? Because we want to avoid state-owned software violating user privacy and sent all my personal data for their profiling database. You will trust a private company for that more, why? Because even a private company have to obey court order to disclose personal information to law enforcement, they usually have the right to deny it before the issue escalated to the court. Now what is the case for autocratic government? Are there any real private company? Using China as an example, any person have to right to inform the government about secret information obtained, so China government have the right to get any information obtained from any Chinese private company without court order. In addition, any large organization including public company have to setup a party branch and have CCP member to oversee the organization. Including Huawei, claiming to be a private company. So, using any product from any private Chinese company has equivalent disadvantage to a 3-letter agency funded VPN network. Now back to the issue of if Liang is CCP or not. I won't quote unconfirmed source about Liang is a hidden CCP member. Just use the opened fact, Liang is a formal governor of Hong Kong, which means Liang has taking oath to CCP and CCP trusted this person to rule HK. Liang is currently a decision maker inside CCP's committee, and if Liang has conduct issue from CCP's point of view, then Liang can be secretly prosecuted by party order and put in jail in China. Another example is Teresa Cheng, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice. For some reason she has been to UK but being taken back to China for investigating her conduct and possibility for applying political asylum by party secret police. She was then released and continued her work in Hong Kong. Detailed is not confirmed, but one thing is clear. Any Hong Kong official can be threatened by party secret police and they must do their job according to CCP plan.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But the whole point here is that this line of reasoning is limited. If Apple were indiscriminately ordering protestor channels to be taken down, we wouldn't accept an excuse that suppressing protestors is "considered more normal" in Belarus, or an argument that the unique context of Belarus means they have no choice but to restrict speech in ways America wouldn't. So if Apple has strong principles against doxxing people, should they really compromise on that just because it'd be good for the protestors if they did?
- tripzilch 6y ago
  Apple is completely out of place meddling in Belarus' politics. Not only that, the stance they are taking is with a dictator who stole the election ...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Apple absolutely shouldn't meddle in Belarus's politics. But if Belarusian users are using their platform to incite violence, as Apple says they are, don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?
    - herbstein 6y ago
      In some instances, like standing up to a violent, oppressive, and dictatorial regime violence is generally considered an acceptable form of political action.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Even if that's true - and I'm not going to get into that debate here - surely that doesn't mean that every company has to allow their products to become tools of mass violence.
        extropy 6y ago
        The trick is that Apple is essentially a utility company and replacing it is a significant expense to the user. And it needs to be aware of it's power and act accordingly. Maybe a "device neutrality" law should be in order. To throw a dumb example your electricity company is not policing you for how you are using your killowats.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Is doxxing a police officer even unacceptable in America? There is very different standard of privacy between an average Joe and an agent of the state performing their duties.
- SauciestGNU 6y ago
  If I've been reading the news correctly, the investigation into the terrorist plot against the Michigan governor was launched because someone was trying to learn the home addresses of police officers. Seems like that is not very well accepted in America.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Was this not simply about getting the names of masked secret police? Also, the issue with getting the gome adresses of police officers in that case is that the intent was to bomb them, not getting their address per se, as that really is quite easily done and not something the state would notice.
gentleman11 6y ago
Mentioning public attitudes as a focus for discussion is basically appeal to authority: just because some other group here or elsewhere thinks something is good or bad, doesn’t make it so. The ideas below that part stand just fine without talking about popularity of norms
- ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
  I think it's more to highlight the fact that there are differing opinions, and American sensibilities shouldn't necessarily dictate what people in separate countries can do. I see no mention of popularity.

powerapple 6y ago

the site you are referring to in your last sentence is not funded by Chinese government, but by a previous governor of Hong Kong (Liang I believe).

antris 6y ago
But isn't the former governor pretty much a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party though?
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  nah they're still a person, the conversion to puppet proved more difficult than expected
  - MiscIdeaMaker99 6y ago
    ROFL
188201 6y ago
Let's be realistic here. Why Liang would fund a site like that. Either one of the reason: CCP ordered that, or he wants to show loyalty and earn credit to CCP. Either case, it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened and didn't ban it. And Liang is vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. What it means is he is not officially CCP but a very trusted person to be included as decision maker of CCP.
- powerapple 6y ago
  I don't think I like the argument of "it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened". CCP is a party with 90 million members, so if you argue Liang act as a member of CCP, I think I am okay with that. I don't know should we be 'realistic' or should we be 'accurate' when we make a point. This is a strange time.
  - 188201 6y ago
    It is an interesting point so I can discuss a little bit. Seems people didn't understand the implication of an autocratic government. When people tried to avoid government funded software, let say a communication app, what is the reason? Because we want to avoid state-owned software violating user privacy and sent all my personal data for their profiling database. You will trust a private company for that more, why? Because even a private company have to obey court order to disclose personal information to law enforcement, they usually have the right to deny it before the issue escalated to the court. Now what is the case for autocratic government? Are there any real private company? Using China as an example, any person have to right to inform the government about secret information obtained, so China government have the right to get any information obtained from any Chinese private company without court order. In addition, any large organization including public company have to setup a party branch and have CCP member to oversee the organization. Including Huawei, claiming to be a private company. So, using any product from any private Chinese company has equivalent disadvantage to a 3-letter agency funded VPN network. Now back to the issue of if Liang is CCP or not. I won't quote unconfirmed source about Liang is a hidden CCP member. Just use the opened fact, Liang is a formal governor of Hong Kong, which means Liang has taking oath to CCP and CCP trusted this person to rule HK. Liang is currently a decision maker inside CCP's committee, and if Liang has conduct issue from CCP's point of view, then Liang can be secretly prosecuted by party order and put in jail in China. Another example is Teresa Cheng, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice. For some reason she has been to UK but being taken back to China for investigating her conduct and possibility for applying political asylum by party secret police. She was then released and continued her work in Hong Kong. Detailed is not confirmed, but one thing is clear. Any Hong Kong official can be threatened by party secret police and they must do their job according to CCP plan.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

But the whole point here is that this line of reasoning is limited. If Apple were indiscriminately ordering protestor channels to be taken down, we wouldn't accept an excuse that suppressing protestors is "considered more normal" in Belarus, or an argument that the unique context of Belarus means they have no choice but to restrict speech in ways America wouldn't. So if Apple has strong principles against doxxing people, should they really compromise on that just because it'd be good for the protestors if they did?

tripzilch 6y ago
Apple is completely out of place meddling in Belarus' politics. Not only that, the stance they are taking is with a dictator who stole the election ...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Apple absolutely shouldn't meddle in Belarus's politics. But if Belarusian users are using their platform to incite violence, as Apple says they are, don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?
  - herbstein 6y ago
    In some instances, like standing up to a violent, oppressive, and dictatorial regime violence is generally considered an acceptable form of political action.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Even if that's true - and I'm not going to get into that debate here - surely that doesn't mean that every company has to allow their products to become tools of mass violence.
      - extropy 6y ago
        The trick is that Apple is essentially a utility company and replacing it is a significant expense to the user. And it needs to be aware of it's power and act accordingly. Maybe a "device neutrality" law should be in order. To throw a dumb example your electricity company is not policing you for how you are using your killowats.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Is doxxing a police officer even unacceptable in America? There is very different standard of privacy between an average Joe and an agent of the state performing their duties.

SauciestGNU 6y ago
If I've been reading the news correctly, the investigation into the terrorist plot against the Michigan governor was launched because someone was trying to learn the home addresses of police officers. Seems like that is not very well accepted in America.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Was this not simply about getting the names of masked secret police? Also, the issue with getting the gome adresses of police officers in that case is that the intent was to bomb them, not getting their address per se, as that really is quite easily done and not something the state would notice.

gentleman11 6y ago

Mentioning public attitudes as a focus for discussion is basically appeal to authority: just because some other group here or elsewhere thinks something is good or bad, doesn’t make it so. The ideas below that part stand just fine without talking about popularity of norms

ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
I think it's more to highlight the fact that there are differing opinions, and American sensibilities shouldn't necessarily dictate what people in separate countries can do. I see no mention of popularity.