4 ms·

Thanks for searching on the internet for links to news stories. I should clarify that I was simply trying to add my personal experience into the discussion. I'm

Thanks for searching on the internet for links to news stories. I should clarify that I was simply trying to add my personal experience into the discussion. I'm not denying there are published in main stream media. But can you personally verify all these reports? I don't think so. Will anyone research in chinese resources? I highly doubt too. So it's a different type of discussion. I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives. In my region I think the probability is extremely low. Other regions of China? I can't quantify.

T-A 3y ago
> But can you personally verify all these reports? Can you personally verify all reports about anything? > Will anyone research in chinese resources? What "chinese resources"? We are talking about unlawful behavior by the Chinese authorities. They are obviously not providing any records about it, and China has no free press to investigate it. > I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives. Just a minute of googling for publicly reported cases surfaces tens of them in recent years. Given the obvious risks of retaliation which come with public disclosure, it would be very surprising if these cases were not just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of that iceberg would be your "negatives". The complete opaqueness of China's judicial system makes it impossible to quantify them. So what? Does that somehow diminish the relevance large number of cases which we do know about? By "false positive", I guess you mean somebody choosing to incur the risks of going public (to themselves and to their relatives back home) just in order to tell a made-up story which will gain them neither money nor fame nor any other advantage. Can you come up with a single plausible reason why anyone would want to do that? > In my region I think the probability is extremely low. Based on what, other than having never been personally subject to it?
- dumb1224 3y ago
  I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation, beating the citzens living in China. And I am talking about incident rate/ false positive rate in the published pieces in the English / European press. I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China? It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press). When I tried to follow a lot of news pieces like those above the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence, and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press. So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. And it's guaranteed that no journalism will be covering the other side of the coin since there is no interest or financial value. So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty. It seems wildly exaggerated.
  - T-A 3y ago
    > I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation Nobody claimed it does. I explicitly said "tip of the iceberg". For future reference, what you're using here is called a straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China? If you are in China, you will not hear anything about it from the authorities (who are acting unlawfully), from the media (which are not free) or even online (unless you go out of your way to get around the Great Firewall and access foreign news). The only way you will hear about any of this is if you, your family or close friends are subject to it. And only close relatives of a publicly known dissident are likely to be targeted. Do you know any such person? If not, there is no reason at all to expect to have ever heard about such things in China. Outside of China, on the other hand, dissidents are free to speak out, the press is free to report what they say, and they are harder for Chinese authorities to silence. Harassing their families back home is then an obvious way to put pressure on them when personal intimidation doesn't suffice. And that's why you are far more likely to hear about this outside of China than inside of it. > It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press). Are you seriously suggesting that these stories are made up by the press? That would work in China, where the media are all under control of the CCP, but not in the West. If the Wall Street Journal made up a story, the Washington Post would have a field tearing it to pieces; if the New York Times slipped, Fox News would be at its throat. And so on. > the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence "The chances"? Did you actually look at any of it? > and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press Do you have any concrete example of such a "debunking"? Or do you simply mean denial? > So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. In other words, you are close friends with members of the Chinese police and/or judiciary, which is entirely controlled by the CCP, and you don't know any dissidents. Your views are thus entirely predictable. > So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty That's not what I responded to; I provided examples of Chinese police harassing the families of dissidents (see "straw man" above). But if you insist, the discussion about China's national security law centers on Article 7, i.e. the part which says All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t... That certainly seems to imply that Chinese citizens and organizations must hand over any information they may have on request from China's intelligence agencies, and was a strong argument for excluding Chinese equipment providers from information infrastructure, as seen e.g. here https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-data-to-china-government-if-asked-experts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...

T-A 3y ago

> But can you personally verify all these reports? Can you personally verify all reports about anything? > Will anyone research in chinese resources? What "chinese resources"? We are talking about unlawful behavior by the Chinese authorities. They are obviously not providing any records about it, and China has no free press to investigate it. > I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives. Just a minute of googling for publicly reported cases surfaces tens of them in recent years. Given the obvious risks of retaliation which come with public disclosure, it would be very surprising if these cases were not just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of that iceberg would be your "negatives". The complete opaqueness of China's judicial system makes it impossible to quantify them. So what? Does that somehow diminish the relevance large number of cases which we do know about? By "false positive", I guess you mean somebody choosing to incur the risks of going public (to themselves and to their relatives back home) just in order to tell a made-up story which will gain them neither money nor fame nor any other advantage. Can you come up with a single plausible reason why anyone would want to do that? > In my region I think the probability is extremely low. Based on what, other than having never been personally subject to it?

dumb1224 3y ago
I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation, beating the citzens living in China. And I am talking about incident rate/ false positive rate in the published pieces in the English / European press. I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China? It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press). When I tried to follow a lot of news pieces like those above the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence, and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press. So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. And it's guaranteed that no journalism will be covering the other side of the coin since there is no interest or financial value. So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty. It seems wildly exaggerated.
- T-A 3y ago
  > I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation Nobody claimed it does. I explicitly said "tip of the iceberg". For future reference, what you're using here is called a straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China? If you are in China, you will not hear anything about it from the authorities (who are acting unlawfully), from the media (which are not free) or even online (unless you go out of your way to get around the Great Firewall and access foreign news). The only way you will hear about any of this is if you, your family or close friends are subject to it. And only close relatives of a publicly known dissident are likely to be targeted. Do you know any such person? If not, there is no reason at all to expect to have ever heard about such things in China. Outside of China, on the other hand, dissidents are free to speak out, the press is free to report what they say, and they are harder for Chinese authorities to silence. Harassing their families back home is then an obvious way to put pressure on them when personal intimidation doesn't suffice. And that's why you are far more likely to hear about this outside of China than inside of it. > It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press). Are you seriously suggesting that these stories are made up by the press? That would work in China, where the media are all under control of the CCP, but not in the West. If the Wall Street Journal made up a story, the Washington Post would have a field tearing it to pieces; if the New York Times slipped, Fox News would be at its throat. And so on. > the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence "The chances"? Did you actually look at any of it? > and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press Do you have any concrete example of such a "debunking"? Or do you simply mean denial? > So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. In other words, you are close friends with members of the Chinese police and/or judiciary, which is entirely controlled by the CCP, and you don't know any dissidents. Your views are thus entirely predictable. > So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty That's not what I responded to; I provided examples of Chinese police harassing the families of dissidents (see "straw man" above). But if you insist, the discussion about China's national security law centers on Article 7, i.e. the part which says All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t... That certainly seems to imply that Chinese citizens and organizations must hand over any information they may have on request from China's intelligence agencies, and was a strong argument for excluding Chinese equipment providers from information infrastructure, as seen e.g. here https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-data-to-china-government-if-asked-experts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...