5 ms·

Ban TikTok – But we need a better version of the RESTRICT Act

29 points by rc00 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
asynchronous 4y ago
Great, consistent argument as to why privacy matters and why this legislation does the opposite of help.
- kurthr 4y ago
  The only thing that matters is the App/Play stores.
est 4y ago
It's just a glorified geo-lock. Why not just disconnect China from the Internet once and for all.
- gtop3 4y ago
  I think reducing the number of computers/people connected to the internet is fundamentally counterproductive to the nature of the internet -- the global computer network. Disconnecting >1b people makes the internet less internet-like.
- herbst 4y ago
  Why would any one country be able to decide which other countries have access to the internet? Where is freedom if this is where are are at?
t-writescode 4y ago
> but not only is this unavoidable, it’s written in Chinese law. Do we not talk about how Australia requires that its citizens to do the same? https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-... Again, what makes China special in this arena? And why must millions of tiny (1-10 person) businesses lose their primary niche-finding advertising system to do it? And why must over 100 million people lose their most effective news source and delivery mechanism for it?
- tuxpenguine 4y ago
  Because in Australia there is rule of law. In China it is rule by law.
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    That sounds like something that would look great on a t-shirt but is ultimately meaningless.
    - tuxpenguine 4y ago
      https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/ https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        Scanning the internet for examples of China being a rule-by-law country consistently presents opinion pieces, or opinion pieces by other names that seem little more than propaganda. China has many, many problems; but "rule by law" doesn't look very different from numerous places that would absolutely claim to be "rule of law"; and so, to me, it remains a propagandized term with a meaning that's used primarily against sets of rules and rulers we don't like.
        tuxpenguine 4y ago
        I see your point, I am sorry to hear that you feel this way, you feelings are valid. As someone who moved from China to the US, I feel I can appreciate the difference a lot more, on a personal level.
        raxxorraxor 3y ago
        Then perhaps appreciating the freedom supplied by not putting everything under government control is worth looking into.
  - 4y ago
gtop3 4y ago
> We believe there are specific actions that the RESTRICT Act can mandate that will diminish the risks posed by Chinese apps without compromising the future of the free and open internet. > Prevent US advertisers from doing business with them > Prevent US-based cloud providers from hosting them > Prevent US social media sites from linking to them How can reducing access to internet resources, reducing who can link to what service, and restricting who can do business with whom based on geographic regions be called uncompromising on "free and open".
Spivak 4y ago
People are really really weird about TikTok being a Chinese company when this is what it's like dealing with US companies not in the US. Oh no the Chinese government could access your data without you knowing? God would that be horrible, thank god we don't do that here hahaha. National Security Letter who? The US would also never use the reach of our private companies to wage information warfare. Literally if you just s/Tiktok/Facebook this article could be read verbatim about the US. We have the exact same laws and our companies do the same shady shit. On HN I hope I don't have to list the scandals from US tech companies. It's really hard to read this push as anything other than the new red scare.
- snehk 4y ago
  As someone not from the US, it's a bit amusing to see Americans cry about something they do on a daily basis, scrambling to find some excuse as to why it's okay when they do it but not okay when others do it. Their biggest fear is literally that China would do what they are already doing. Bonus points for mentioning human rights or something as if the US were a country that could lecture others on human rights. The hypocrisy is stunning.
- herbst 4y ago
  This. It's kinda awkward that everyday a new comment section gets filled with anti Chinese propaganda even thought most here on HN should definitely know better. It's time we talk about privacy. However this is completely the wrong way to do so.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Not even 24 hours later https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35556193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35556193 > The problem is not technical, FB could write anything, the security of the system is as weak as its weakest link. The problem here is way way behind the computer. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ The weakest link here, is that Facebook has to respect US laws. They don't have a choice there. So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done.

29 points by rc00 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

asynchronous 4y ago

Great, consistent argument as to why privacy matters and why this legislation does the opposite of help.

kurthr 4y ago
The only thing that matters is the App/Play stores.

est 4y ago

It's just a glorified geo-lock. Why not just disconnect China from the Internet once and for all.

gtop3 4y ago
I think reducing the number of computers/people connected to the internet is fundamentally counterproductive to the nature of the internet -- the global computer network. Disconnecting >1b people makes the internet less internet-like.
herbst 4y ago
Why would any one country be able to decide which other countries have access to the internet? Where is freedom if this is where are are at?

t-writescode 4y ago

> but not only is this unavoidable, it’s written in Chinese law. Do we not talk about how Australia requires that its citizens to do the same? https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-... Again, what makes China special in this arena? And why must millions of tiny (1-10 person) businesses lose their primary niche-finding advertising system to do it? And why must over 100 million people lose their most effective news source and delivery mechanism for it?

tuxpenguine 4y ago
Because in Australia there is rule of law. In China it is rule by law.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  That sounds like something that would look great on a t-shirt but is ultimately meaningless.
  - tuxpenguine 4y ago
    https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/ https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      Scanning the internet for examples of China being a rule-by-law country consistently presents opinion pieces, or opinion pieces by other names that seem little more than propaganda. China has many, many problems; but "rule by law" doesn't look very different from numerous places that would absolutely claim to be "rule of law"; and so, to me, it remains a propagandized term with a meaning that's used primarily against sets of rules and rulers we don't like.
      - tuxpenguine 4y ago
        I see your point, I am sorry to hear that you feel this way, you feelings are valid. As someone who moved from China to the US, I feel I can appreciate the difference a lot more, on a personal level.
        raxxorraxor 3y ago
        Then perhaps appreciating the freedom supplied by not putting everything under government control is worth looking into.
- 4y ago

gtop3 4y ago

> We believe there are specific actions that the RESTRICT Act can mandate that will diminish the risks posed by Chinese apps without compromising the future of the free and open internet. > Prevent US advertisers from doing business with them > Prevent US-based cloud providers from hosting them > Prevent US social media sites from linking to them How can reducing access to internet resources, reducing who can link to what service, and restricting who can do business with whom based on geographic regions be called uncompromising on "free and open".

Spivak 4y ago

People are really really weird about TikTok being a Chinese company when this is what it's like dealing with US companies not in the US. Oh no the Chinese government could access your data without you knowing? God would that be horrible, thank god we don't do that here hahaha. National Security Letter who? The US would also never use the reach of our private companies to wage information warfare. Literally if you just s/Tiktok/Facebook this article could be read verbatim about the US. We have the exact same laws and our companies do the same shady shit. On HN I hope I don't have to list the scandals from US tech companies. It's really hard to read this push as anything other than the new red scare.

snehk 4y ago
As someone not from the US, it's a bit amusing to see Americans cry about something they do on a daily basis, scrambling to find some excuse as to why it's okay when they do it but not okay when others do it. Their biggest fear is literally that China would do what they are already doing. Bonus points for mentioning human rights or something as if the US were a country that could lecture others on human rights. The hypocrisy is stunning.
herbst 4y ago
This. It's kinda awkward that everyday a new comment section gets filled with anti Chinese propaganda even thought most here on HN should definitely know better. It's time we talk about privacy. However this is completely the wrong way to do so.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Not even 24 hours later https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35556193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35556193 > The problem is not technical, FB could write anything, the security of the system is as weak as its weakest link. The problem here is way way behind the computer. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ The weakest link here, is that Facebook has to respect US laws. They don't have a choice there. So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done.