3 ms·

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/ fal

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...
- dumb1224 3y ago
  As I have two kids I don't have much time but I'll try reply briefly: I am living in Europe so I am aware of most concepts you mentioned (including straw man, which is abused in comments on HN and isn't how I answer). There are true and half true and even false information in every news story. That's the false positive I meant. I didn't look up every news, nor did anyone, including yourself I believe. I never imply Wall Street would make up stories, but it could be susceptible to biased opinions like any major media. First of all my friends are individuals and lively human beings, they express their own opinion freely to me at least, it's independent of the political structure, being reduced to 'the controlled members' is a little insulting to their intellectual capcity. What I wish is to contribute is my real life knowledge, not links on the internet(not that I deny all their authenticity). Once again, if you haven't read what I replied, the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy. You also said 'imply'. If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
  - T-A 3y ago
    > the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy The translation by China Law Translate [1] of the Chinese text [2] is in agreement with those provided by Google Translate [3], DeepL Translate [4], and Bing Translator [5]. The only differences are trivial: "intelligence efforts" for some (CLT, Bing) vs "intelligence work" for others (Google, DeepL), capitalization of "State" versus plain "state". Let's go with CLT and quote the whole thing: Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of. The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts. What does that mean? Keeping in mind that the law was drafted by the Ministry of State Security [6] ("the principal civilian intelligence, security and secret police agency of the People's Republic of China"), let's see how Wikipedia describes that kind of "efforts" or "work" [7]: An intelligence agency is a government agency responsible for the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information in support of law enforcement, national security, military, public safety, and foreign policy objectives. Means of information gathering are both overt and covert and may include espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources. The assembly and propagation of this information is known as intelligence analysis or intelligence assessment. Do you see the word "spy" anywhere in that text? It's only used once on the entire page, in the title of an external link to a popular article about the 17 intelligence agencies which the US sees fit to run. Nobody serious says "spy". But everybody knows what "intelligence work" means. So, what Article 7 says is that any Chinese citizen or organization must "support, assist, and cooperate" with China's intelligence agencies, which are in the business of collecting, analyzing and exploiting information. And just in case there's some doubt about where that work can be carried out, Article 10 clarifies that "national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad". > You also said 'imply'. Yes. What's wrong with "imply"? > If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more. I have no problem believing that your CCP friends are more knowledgeable about the internal workings of China's police and judiciary than I or just about any external observer; the CCP is intentionally opaque. For the exact same reason, I have an effectively insurmountable problem believing that they can be entirely open with you (assuming that you are not part of the same context) or that you could be entirely open about governance issues in a public forum such as this. If you are really unwise I suppose you could ask them what's going on with Peng Lifa [8] and his family [9], considering the recent anniversary. (To be clear: I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't post in public about it if I were you.) [1] https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-law-of-the-p-r-c-2017/ https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-l... [2] https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E6%83%85%E6%8A%A5%E6%B3%95 https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E... [3] https://zh-wikisource-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E6%83%85%E6%8A%A5%E6%B3%95?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US https://zh-wikisource-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8... [4] https://www.deepl.com/en/translator https://www.deepl.com/en/translator [5] https://www.bing.com/translator?to=en https://www.bing.com/translator?to=en [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security_(China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security_(Ch... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agency [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Sitong_Bridge_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Sitong_Bridge_protest [9] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-bridge-man-10162023153757.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-bridge-man-1016...

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...

dumb1224 3y ago
As I have two kids I don't have much time but I'll try reply briefly: I am living in Europe so I am aware of most concepts you mentioned (including straw man, which is abused in comments on HN and isn't how I answer). There are true and half true and even false information in every news story. That's the false positive I meant. I didn't look up every news, nor did anyone, including yourself I believe. I never imply Wall Street would make up stories, but it could be susceptible to biased opinions like any major media. First of all my friends are individuals and lively human beings, they express their own opinion freely to me at least, it's independent of the political structure, being reduced to 'the controlled members' is a little insulting to their intellectual capcity. What I wish is to contribute is my real life knowledge, not links on the internet(not that I deny all their authenticity). Once again, if you haven't read what I replied, the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy. You also said 'imply'. If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
- T-A 3y ago
  > the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy The translation by China Law Translate [1] of the Chinese text [2] is in agreement with those provided by Google Translate [3], DeepL Translate [4], and Bing Translator [5]. The only differences are trivial: "intelligence efforts" for some (CLT, Bing) vs "intelligence work" for others (Google, DeepL), capitalization of "State" versus plain "state". Let's go with CLT and quote the whole thing: Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of. The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts. What does that mean? Keeping in mind that the law was drafted by the Ministry of State Security [6] ("the principal civilian intelligence, security and secret police agency of the People's Republic of China"), let's see how Wikipedia describes that kind of "efforts" or "work" [7]: An intelligence agency is a government agency responsible for the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information in support of law enforcement, national security, military, public safety, and foreign policy objectives. Means of information gathering are both overt and covert and may include espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources. The assembly and propagation of this information is known as intelligence analysis or intelligence assessment. Do you see the word "spy" anywhere in that text? It's only used once on the entire page, in the title of an external link to a popular article about the 17 intelligence agencies which the US sees fit to run. Nobody serious says "spy". But everybody knows what "intelligence work" means. So, what Article 7 says is that any Chinese citizen or organization must "support, assist, and cooperate" with China's intelligence agencies, which are in the business of collecting, analyzing and exploiting information. And just in case there's some doubt about where that work can be carried out, Article 10 clarifies that "national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad". > You also said 'imply'. Yes. What's wrong with "imply"? > If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more. I have no problem believing that your CCP friends are more knowledgeable about the internal workings of China's police and judiciary than I or just about any external observer; the CCP is intentionally opaque. For the exact same reason, I have an effectively insurmountable problem believing that they can be entirely open with you (assuming that you are not part of the same context) or that you could be entirely open about governance issues in a public forum such as this. If you are really unwise I suppose you could ask them what's going on with Peng Lifa [8] and his family [9], considering the recent anniversary. (To be clear: I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't post in public about it if I were you.) [1] https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-law-of-the-p-r-c-2017/ https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-l... [2] https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E6%83%85%E6%8A%A5%E6%B3%95 https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E... [3] https://zh-wikisource-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E6%83%85%E6%8A%A5%E6%B3%95?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US https://zh-wikisource-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8... [4] https://www.deepl.com/en/translator https://www.deepl.com/en/translator [5] https://www.bing.com/translator?to=en https://www.bing.com/translator?to=en [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security_(China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security_(Ch... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agency [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Sitong_Bridge_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Sitong_Bridge_protest [9] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-bridge-man-10162023153757.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-bridge-man-1016...