5 ms·

I believe the implication would be they are spying for China in this case, and therefore as legal as they want it to be.

michaelcampbell 6y ago
Right, I meant is it allowed by Chinese law to NOT spy for the government. As I understand it, to be allowed to operate in China as a Chinese company, you are under the obligation to provide any information you collect to the gov't upon request. Is that not the case?
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  That is the case.
- onethought 6y ago
  Australia has similar laws also.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Not sure why you're getting downvoted, what you stated is correct. https://phys.org/news/2018-12-australia-cyber-snooping-laws-global.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-australia-cyber-snooping-laws-...
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    So does the US. The only real difference between countries is not if it is different but how each has implemented it in law. The result is the same.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Google publishes a transparency report with aggregate information on government requests for user data, and regularly challenges requests to reduce their scope. To pretend that this is the same as China is a joke. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961 https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961
      - onethought 6y ago
        Yet google didn’t know their data was being hijacked and harvested by nsa and co... so hop down off that high horse of US exceptionalism.
        michaelcampbell 6y ago
        Pointing out a difference is not what you assert.
        onethought 6y ago
        > To pretend that this is the same as China is a joke. ... it is the same as China. Or is that the joke?
- sleepydog 6y ago
  Splitting hairs here, but the wording of your question gives the impression that one could choose not to collect any data and then be free of said obligations, but I don't think that's the case. Does anyone know?
- tehjoker 6y ago
  You guys are familiar with the Snowden disclosures and how all telecom companies and very likely all major tech companies are spying for the US government right? At this point, this is table stakes for big tech and it's completely anti-democratic. China may have a very good domestic dragnet but clearly it's playing catch up compared to the foreign intelligence assets the USG (and five eyes) has.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    If you're going to cite Snowden, please be accurate. Remember that one of the leaks was that the NSA tapped unencrypted Google backhaul in transit without Google's knowledge. There's a difference between panopticon fearmongering and citing specific information we should be wary of. The former leads to apathy. The latter leads to action.
    - xtian 6y ago
      How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        Whoa. I'm surprised I'd never heard of this before. Thank you.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        That was ATT. It (and all the other exposed operations) hardly support the statement that "all telecom companies and very likely all major tech companies are spying for the US government".
        xtian 6y ago
        The US defense and intelligence apparatuses have been deeply intertwined with private enterprise for many decades. This is a matter of historical fact. But I totally understand if it's more comfortable for you to believe that now things are different despite the fact that no one was ever held to account for what happened in the past.
- thw0rted 6y ago
  There is a difference between being required to collect data that they wouldn't otherwise need for a legitimate business purpose, and being required to provide access to data they've already collected to their government. I'm no expert but it seems like a Chinese company could design products that don't collect a bunch of extraneous information, without violating Chinese law.

michaelcampbell 6y ago

Right, I meant is it allowed by Chinese law to NOT spy for the government. As I understand it, to be allowed to operate in China as a Chinese company, you are under the obligation to provide any information you collect to the gov't upon request. Is that not the case?

thoughtstheseus 6y ago
That is the case.
onethought 6y ago
Australia has similar laws also.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted, what you stated is correct. https://phys.org/news/2018-12-australia-cyber-snooping-laws-global.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-australia-cyber-snooping-laws-...
- Daho0n 6y ago
  So does the US. The only real difference between countries is not if it is different but how each has implemented it in law. The result is the same.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Google publishes a transparency report with aggregate information on government requests for user data, and regularly challenges requests to reduce their scope. To pretend that this is the same as China is a joke. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961 https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961
    - onethought 6y ago
      Yet google didn’t know their data was being hijacked and harvested by nsa and co... so hop down off that high horse of US exceptionalism.
      - michaelcampbell 6y ago
        Pointing out a difference is not what you assert.
        onethought 6y ago
        > To pretend that this is the same as China is a joke. ... it is the same as China. Or is that the joke?
sleepydog 6y ago
Splitting hairs here, but the wording of your question gives the impression that one could choose not to collect any data and then be free of said obligations, but I don't think that's the case. Does anyone know?
tehjoker 6y ago
You guys are familiar with the Snowden disclosures and how all telecom companies and very likely all major tech companies are spying for the US government right? At this point, this is table stakes for big tech and it's completely anti-democratic. China may have a very good domestic dragnet but clearly it's playing catch up compared to the foreign intelligence assets the USG (and five eyes) has.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  If you're going to cite Snowden, please be accurate. Remember that one of the leaks was that the NSA tapped unencrypted Google backhaul in transit without Google's knowledge. There's a difference between panopticon fearmongering and citing specific information we should be wary of. The former leads to apathy. The latter leads to action.
  - xtian 6y ago
    How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      Whoa. I'm surprised I'd never heard of this before. Thank you.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      That was ATT. It (and all the other exposed operations) hardly support the statement that "all telecom companies and very likely all major tech companies are spying for the US government".
      - xtian 6y ago
        The US defense and intelligence apparatuses have been deeply intertwined with private enterprise for many decades. This is a matter of historical fact. But I totally understand if it's more comfortable for you to believe that now things are different despite the fact that no one was ever held to account for what happened in the past.
thw0rted 6y ago
There is a difference between being required to collect data that they wouldn't otherwise need for a legitimate business purpose, and being required to provide access to data they've already collected to their government. I'm no expert but it seems like a Chinese company could design products that don't collect a bunch of extraneous information, without violating Chinese law.