3 ms·

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, w

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...
- dumb1224 3y ago
  It's clear that you interpret the Chinese judiciary system as less transparent and fair than the democratic western counterparts. Yet you analyse and interpret laws in the same fashion as a functioning law system. By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. So analysing the text would make no sense. China doesn't have a Common Law system and almost certainly the law is exercised differently in different regions. I am simply adding my interpretation of how they are perceived in my limited circle. It's also interesting you referring my 'CCP friends'. As if it's a category of people or an attribute. Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member (and certainly if taking office). Thirdly there are countless protests going on everyday. That's the reason I'm adding my insights as most 'chinese resources' are on social media, transient messages and posts, almost never get covered in the mainstream median. No one denies their existence. But like any movement, there are good and bad sides. What you can reach easily is very likely the end of long pipeline of biased selection. I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary). Besides it'll be very unlikely that our local judge would know anything about a high profile case like LiFa Peng (would a local officer know a FBI investigation?). These are only visible in the west because they have been escalated to the extreme. Most protests are actually followed up a lot on social media, with the biggest noticable change perhaps being COVID restriction lifted.
  - T-A 3y ago
    > By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. China is commonly regarded as a "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") jurisdiction [1]. That doesn't mean that the law is irrelevant; it means that the law is applied if and when it suits the CCP to do so. So if you want to know which powers the CCP is interested in wielding (like the ability to order any Chinese citizen or organization anywhere in the world to assist "intelligence efforts"), you should definitely read the law. > Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member Hardly. As of December 31, 2022, total membership of the Communist Party of China was 98.041 million (taken straight from the "Intra-Party Statistical Bulletin of the Communist Party of China" [2]). More than 99 million people live in the top five cities alone - and there are about a hundred more counting at least one million inhabitants each [3]. > (and certainly if taking office) That I certainly believe. > I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary). You may want to have a look at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CQBeBpP2-A45lw-zr6mneDuPtSBNWg_8KqgXpWMLcbo/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CQBeBpP2-A45lw-zr6mn... (introduced to us poor misguided receivers of "biased reporting" in [4]). [1] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/rule-law-%3F%3F-and-rule-law-%3F%3F https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/rule-law-%3... [2] http://www.qstheory.cn/yaowen/2023-06/30/c_1129725174.htm http://www.qstheory.cn/yaowen/2023-06/30/c_1129725174.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_pop... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/china-online-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/china-online-cen...

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...

dumb1224 3y ago
It's clear that you interpret the Chinese judiciary system as less transparent and fair than the democratic western counterparts. Yet you analyse and interpret laws in the same fashion as a functioning law system. By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. So analysing the text would make no sense. China doesn't have a Common Law system and almost certainly the law is exercised differently in different regions. I am simply adding my interpretation of how they are perceived in my limited circle. It's also interesting you referring my 'CCP friends'. As if it's a category of people or an attribute. Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member (and certainly if taking office). Thirdly there are countless protests going on everyday. That's the reason I'm adding my insights as most 'chinese resources' are on social media, transient messages and posts, almost never get covered in the mainstream median. No one denies their existence. But like any movement, there are good and bad sides. What you can reach easily is very likely the end of long pipeline of biased selection. I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary). Besides it'll be very unlikely that our local judge would know anything about a high profile case like LiFa Peng (would a local officer know a FBI investigation?). These are only visible in the west because they have been escalated to the extreme. Most protests are actually followed up a lot on social media, with the biggest noticable change perhaps being COVID restriction lifted.
- T-A 3y ago
  > By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. China is commonly regarded as a "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") jurisdiction [1]. That doesn't mean that the law is irrelevant; it means that the law is applied if and when it suits the CCP to do so. So if you want to know which powers the CCP is interested in wielding (like the ability to order any Chinese citizen or organization anywhere in the world to assist "intelligence efforts"), you should definitely read the law. > Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member Hardly. As of December 31, 2022, total membership of the Communist Party of China was 98.041 million (taken straight from the "Intra-Party Statistical Bulletin of the Communist Party of China" [2]). More than 99 million people live in the top five cities alone - and there are about a hundred more counting at least one million inhabitants each [3]. > (and certainly if taking office) That I certainly believe. > I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary). You may want to have a look at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CQBeBpP2-A45lw-zr6mneDuPtSBNWg_8KqgXpWMLcbo/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CQBeBpP2-A45lw-zr6mn... (introduced to us poor misguided receivers of "biased reporting" in [4]). [1] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/rule-law-%3F%3F-and-rule-law-%3F%3F https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/rule-law-%3... [2] http://www.qstheory.cn/yaowen/2023-06/30/c_1129725174.htm http://www.qstheory.cn/yaowen/2023-06/30/c_1129725174.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_pop... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/china-online-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/china-online-cen...