3 ms·

> But in context: > > - Australia has similar laws. > > - Snowden releases showed the US don’t even ask, they just take it. > > So it’s not like there is a h

> But in context: > > - Australia has similar laws. > > - Snowden releases showed the US don’t even ask, they just take it. > > So it’s not like there is a huge amount of difference around the world. I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like? Snowdon case made the US government look bad, please don't use the same reason to make the Chinese Communist Party look good or OK. It's kind weird when something bad happens, everyone just points at the US and says they do that too! The CCP did something bad, Somehow it's OK because the US government did something bad. If you are an US national and living in the US, you can complain and bitch about your government all you want and not worrying about your safety, hence you can talk about the Snowdon case or berate the president, and things might change. Would you dare doing that in Chinese soil even if your are not Chinese.

onethought 6y ago
No, I was pointing out the "Don't by Xiaomi because you can't trust them" is logically flawed... because you can't trust any of the countries involved with the manufacture of phones. This isn't excusing the behaviour, it's pointing out that "privacy" is not a justification for not using Chinese goods, because American goods have evidence of exactly the same compromise.
- strangeattractr 6y ago
  All mobile phone manufacturers are spying on you does not automatically follow from the fact that Xiaomi browsers are spyware.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Pretty sure I didn't state that. But I agree with what you're stating.
rstuart4133 6y ago
> I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like? I assume it's the Australian Assistance and Access Bill that's being referred to here. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's prime job (which isn't hidden - it's spelt out in the explanatory notes) is to circumvent encryption by accessing the data at the end points, where it isn't encrypted. It must be unencrypted at the end points because humans can't read or listen to encrypted data. https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-Assistance-and-Access-Bill https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-... The bill gives several government agencies the legal right to coerce any software company to "assist" them by writing a bug that is invisible to the OS. The "access" part gives them right to coerce a software company to distribute software to any device they target (there is legal oversight on who they can target). To fill this out with a concrete example, they could compel Google to provide a version of the Android Google Keyboard that records all key strokes and the name of the application it is are sending them to. They can then force Google to install that keyboard via their auto update mechanism. Notice that using an open source program like Signal that securely and correctly encrypts everything, and comes from a trusted source is not a useful defence against this. Both of these powers are accompanied by an automatic gag mechanism, meaning if Google revealed they were asked to do either of these things someone would go to jail. The provisions in the act for reporting when and where these powers are used, so the voters could have some say are to put it mildly weak. Although Australia is very clearly a country that operates around "the rule of law", in the end the only difference that has made is we know they are doing it, whereas China could deny they are doing it. In reality, I don't think China tries to deny the Great Firewall of China, or the invasive probes they force citizens to install to support their social credits system. So yeah in my view OP is quite correct. If there are differences they revolve around how widely these things are deployed, not over whether they exist. I presume my home country, Australia, deploys them a lot less, but they go to a great deal of trouble to ensure there is no way to be sure.

onethought 6y ago

No, I was pointing out the "Don't by Xiaomi because you can't trust them" is logically flawed... because you can't trust any of the countries involved with the manufacture of phones. This isn't excusing the behaviour, it's pointing out that "privacy" is not a justification for not using Chinese goods, because American goods have evidence of exactly the same compromise.

strangeattractr 6y ago
All mobile phone manufacturers are spying on you does not automatically follow from the fact that Xiaomi browsers are spyware.
- onethought 6y ago
  Pretty sure I didn't state that. But I agree with what you're stating.

rstuart4133 6y ago

> I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like? I assume it's the Australian Assistance and Access Bill that's being referred to here. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's prime job (which isn't hidden - it's spelt out in the explanatory notes) is to circumvent encryption by accessing the data at the end points, where it isn't encrypted. It must be unencrypted at the end points because humans can't read or listen to encrypted data. https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-Assistance-and-Access-Bill https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-... The bill gives several government agencies the legal right to coerce any software company to "assist" them by writing a bug that is invisible to the OS. The "access" part gives them right to coerce a software company to distribute software to any device they target (there is legal oversight on who they can target). To fill this out with a concrete example, they could compel Google to provide a version of the Android Google Keyboard that records all key strokes and the name of the application it is are sending them to. They can then force Google to install that keyboard via their auto update mechanism. Notice that using an open source program like Signal that securely and correctly encrypts everything, and comes from a trusted source is not a useful defence against this. Both of these powers are accompanied by an automatic gag mechanism, meaning if Google revealed they were asked to do either of these things someone would go to jail. The provisions in the act for reporting when and where these powers are used, so the voters could have some say are to put it mildly weak. Although Australia is very clearly a country that operates around "the rule of law", in the end the only difference that has made is we know they are doing it, whereas China could deny they are doing it. In reality, I don't think China tries to deny the Great Firewall of China, or the invasive probes they force citizens to install to support their social credits system. So yeah in my view OP is quite correct. If there are differences they revolve around how widely these things are deployed, not over whether they exist. I presume my home country, Australia, deploys them a lot less, but they go to a great deal of trouble to ensure there is no way to be sure.