4 ms·

Is this also true for highly-funded, money-losing SV startups focusing on growth. Why or why not?

parker_mountain 4y ago
Well, I don't agree with OP, but the Chinese government is way more involved with its companies than the US is. Here, ostensibly, there's a court and legal process - versus China, where the government has all data by default. So, any Chinese tech company is de facto going to have all of its data accessible by the Chinese government, by default.
- user_named 4y ago
  It's interesting to see you make these claims when you know nothing about the workings of the legal system in China.
  - kryptiskt 4y ago
    By Chinese law all data must be made accessible to the government. Of course, it's also an authoritarian state where the government isn't hamstrung by the legal system in any way.
  - indemnity 4y ago
    What legal system? The legal system in China is whatever the party wants it to be.
    - tehjoker 4y ago
      it's funny you raise that point right after the abortion decision here
  - parker_mountain 4y ago
    > know nothing about the workings of the legal system in China Hello, I'm an appsec engineer working on product privacy for a large multinational company. I have a pretty accurate, battle tested, mental model about data privacy w/r/t international verticals. I have worked with our China vertical and also worked on key escrow separation models. You might even be able to figure out which company, based on the above. It's interesting to see you make these claims about me when you know nothing about me.
- sumedh 4y ago
  > Here, ostensibly, there's a court and legal process On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been conducting surveillance against U.S. citizens without specific approval from the FISA court for each case since 2002. In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
ravenstine 4y ago
No one said they aren't. Yet there's always someone in any given thread about a Chinese app jumping to its defense saying "but Silicon Valley." So should no one speak out against concentration camps, cultural genocide, and mass sterilization in China today because the same things have happened historically in the United States? China being an adversary should have nothing to do with it? If we can't point out such a problem with an app, then the road we're going down is we can't say anything else about China either.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think all of these apps behave deplorably. But these kinds of comments try to imply that TikTok is uniquely dangerous when it's just more of the same. The solutions offered also often target TikTok specifically - like banning TikTok in the US, or placing some kind of restrictions on how TikTok can operate. Why is the solution not to make broad data collection illegal? Edit: > So should no one speak out against concentration camps, cultural genocide, and mass sterilization in China today because the same things have happened historically in the United States? Not at all - those things are genuinely awful, but one key difference is that Facebook, Google, and others are still siphoning up people's data today. This isn't something that happened in the past. I think the comparison is quite valid.
  - ChemSpider 4y ago
    Based on published information, Tiktok is behaving significantly worse than any other major player in this market. Just one example: There are no reports of Meta (etc) logging my keystrokes and data OUTSIDE of what I enter into the app/website. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33049774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33049774
    - hello_friendos 4y ago
    - rchaud 4y ago
      What published information? The link you posted is from Consumer Reports which says nothing of the sort.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dnissley 4y ago
The answer is simple: In the US it's a scandal if the government has open access without a warrant to private citizen data held by companies. In China that's just considered business as usual.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think this is a common response. But even though the Snowden revelations were a "scandal", nothing bad really happened to the perpetrators. And the FISA court that rubber-stamped the data collection is still operating and still rubber-stamping government surveillance. So, how is it not business as usual in the US? Consider also how law enforcement now has warrantless access to individuals' location data thanks to data brokers and pervasive location tracking in apps[1]. I would really like to see people in North America demand better from their leaders instead of patting ourselves on the back about how at least we're better than China. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/tool-gives-police-sweeping-location-data-from-popular-apps-sometimes-without-warrants.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/tool-gives-polic...
  - dnissley 4y ago
    > even though the Snowden revelations were a "scandal", nothing bad really happened to the perpetrators This is true, and bad, but consider another difference in this situation: In the US, companies were able to respond to this revelation by shoring up their security practices, and people exercised their right to openly criticize the government. This is not possible in China.
    - user_named 4y ago
      Security practices? They collaborated with the NSA, CIA, what have you. You are really deluded.
- user_named 4y ago
  No, it's only a scandal when information about that access leaks. The US government still has and has always had access to all data about US citizens. Bizarre that you think that stopped.
the_optimist 4y ago
It is an espionage organization because it is controlled by an adversarial group which collects and stores detailed individual data. The CIA, NSA, and Google hold the same character.

Well, I don't agree with OP, but the Chinese government is way more involved with its companies than the US is. Here, ostensibly, there's a court and legal process - versus China, where the government has all data by default. So, any Chinese tech company is de facto going to have all of its data accessible by the Chinese government, by default.

user_named 4y ago
It's interesting to see you make these claims when you know nothing about the workings of the legal system in China.
- kryptiskt 4y ago
  By Chinese law all data must be made accessible to the government. Of course, it's also an authoritarian state where the government isn't hamstrung by the legal system in any way.
- indemnity 4y ago
  What legal system? The legal system in China is whatever the party wants it to be.
  - tehjoker 4y ago
    it's funny you raise that point right after the abortion decision here
- parker_mountain 4y ago
  > know nothing about the workings of the legal system in China Hello, I'm an appsec engineer working on product privacy for a large multinational company. I have a pretty accurate, battle tested, mental model about data privacy w/r/t international verticals. I have worked with our China vertical and also worked on key escrow separation models. You might even be able to figure out which company, based on the above. It's interesting to see you make these claims about me when you know nothing about me.
sumedh 4y ago
> Here, ostensibly, there's a court and legal process On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been conducting surveillance against U.S. citizens without specific approval from the FISA court for each case since 2002. In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

ravenstine 4y ago

No one said they aren't. Yet there's always someone in any given thread about a Chinese app jumping to its defense saying "but Silicon Valley." So should no one speak out against concentration camps, cultural genocide, and mass sterilization in China today because the same things have happened historically in the United States? China being an adversary should have nothing to do with it? If we can't point out such a problem with an app, then the road we're going down is we can't say anything else about China either.

AlexandrB 4y ago
I think all of these apps behave deplorably. But these kinds of comments try to imply that TikTok is uniquely dangerous when it's just more of the same. The solutions offered also often target TikTok specifically - like banning TikTok in the US, or placing some kind of restrictions on how TikTok can operate. Why is the solution not to make broad data collection illegal? Edit: > So should no one speak out against concentration camps, cultural genocide, and mass sterilization in China today because the same things have happened historically in the United States? Not at all - those things are genuinely awful, but one key difference is that Facebook, Google, and others are still siphoning up people's data today. This isn't something that happened in the past. I think the comparison is quite valid.
- ChemSpider 4y ago
  Based on published information, Tiktok is behaving significantly worse than any other major player in this market. Just one example: There are no reports of Meta (etc) logging my keystrokes and data OUTSIDE of what I enter into the app/website. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33049774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33049774
  - hello_friendos 4y ago
  - rchaud 4y ago
    What published information? The link you posted is from Consumer Reports which says nothing of the sort.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dnissley 4y ago

The answer is simple: In the US it's a scandal if the government has open access without a warrant to private citizen data held by companies. In China that's just considered business as usual.

AlexandrB 4y ago
I think this is a common response. But even though the Snowden revelations were a "scandal", nothing bad really happened to the perpetrators. And the FISA court that rubber-stamped the data collection is still operating and still rubber-stamping government surveillance. So, how is it not business as usual in the US? Consider also how law enforcement now has warrantless access to individuals' location data thanks to data brokers and pervasive location tracking in apps[1]. I would really like to see people in North America demand better from their leaders instead of patting ourselves on the back about how at least we're better than China. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/tool-gives-police-sweeping-location-data-from-popular-apps-sometimes-without-warrants.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/tool-gives-polic...
- dnissley 4y ago
  > even though the Snowden revelations were a "scandal", nothing bad really happened to the perpetrators This is true, and bad, but consider another difference in this situation: In the US, companies were able to respond to this revelation by shoring up their security practices, and people exercised their right to openly criticize the government. This is not possible in China.
  - user_named 4y ago
    Security practices? They collaborated with the NSA, CIA, what have you. You are really deluded.
user_named 4y ago
No, it's only a scandal when information about that access leaks. The US government still has and has always had access to all data about US citizens. Bizarre that you think that stopped.

the_optimist 4y ago

It is an espionage organization because it is controlled by an adversarial group which collects and stores detailed individual data. The CIA, NSA, and Google hold the same character.