5 ms·

>> companies like Huawei that American officials say could be used as a spying tool by the Chinese government > Remember, spying is ONLY okay when the good guy

by tivert 2y ago

>> companies like Huawei that American officials say could be used as a spying tool by the Chinese government > Remember, spying is ONLY okay when the good guys™ are doing it. So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? Because the law is totally about particular entity avoiding being spied upon by it's adversary. It's not some kind of universal statement on what kind of spying is good and what kind is bad that you're twisting it into. There's no universal there, it's all contextual.

hypeatei 2y ago
I understand what this law is meant to do because China is the bad guy here, I get it. I'm merely pointing out that the U.S. does not have a leg to stand on when they'll turn around do the exact same thing. I find all the hypocrisy and posturing very tiring.
- tivert 2y ago
  > I'm merely pointing out that the U.S. does not have a leg to stand on when they'll turn around do the exact same thing. > I find all the hypocrisy and posturing very tiring. I'm merely pointing out that you're severely misunderstanding this. As I said before: there's no universal there, it's all contextual. The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story. It's like a soldier hiding from enemy fire in a foxhole and telling his buddies to do the same. If you wander onto the battlefield and tell him you find his "hypocrisy and posturing very tiring," because he shoots back at his enemy, he'd look at you like you're mad, and he'd be right because you don't get what's going on in a pretty fundamental way.
  - hypeatei 2y ago
    > The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story. Yes, that take isn't particularly surprising. The hyper fixation and "we're done talking about this" vibe is very strange.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > The hyper fixation and "we're done talking about this" vibe is very strange. "End of story" didn't mean what you seem to think it meant. But we're done talking about this because you seem to be too prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It's a waste of time.
  - sididjddjd 2y ago
    the issue is turning everything into a literal battlefield as opposed to market competition with transnational regulatory bodies to align rules. Recent generations have forgotten what the UN was for and seem to valorise violence and militarism in every aspect of life. The generation that fought to avoid that happening again are no longer with us, and it shows. I’m not sure picking a bad guy and defining a position as “in a fox hole” is anything close to objective discussion but like other comments, the path that’s being charted benefits from accepting its inevitability and there being no alternative
    - libertine 2y ago
      > the issue is turning everything into a literal battlefield as opposed to market competition with transnational regulatory bodies to align rules. The problem with autocratic regimes is that they don't seem to care that much about rules, or some rights and duties that a valued by Western societies. You can claim that Western countries at times didn't follow rules either, they're far from perfect. But one thing is to haven't followed the rules on some occasions, the other thing is to do it consistently as a part of your strategy, because there are no consequences to it. Let's pick for example Russia: their regime loves to use the Iraq war and now even the Israel war to make parallels between what they are doing and want to achieve in Ukraine, and what the US did and what Israel is doing. Here we have a country trying to annex another country, and using Genocide as a tool to achieve this goal, and you have Brazil, India, China, and South Africa supporting this. Or China making it difficult for foreign companies to tap into the value of the Chinese internal market, and the amount of IP theft that happened for decades. That's not market competition, and regulators can't enforce anything when you have big players captured by a small elite not playing by the rules. What are you going to do about it?
      - redserk 2y ago
        I can’t disagree at all with what you've stated, but I’ll toss in a nuclear-take here: As a consumer, the IP theft has been fantastic. Prices for many things stayed high for no good reason and market competition hasn’t been doing what it ought to because our market is broken in a number of ways to favor incumbents. It’s been the only effective check on the market in quite a long time. Now is it at all ethical? Perhaps not. But it’s extremely difficult to have sympathy.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    "The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story" Wow! That almost reads like he believes it. How quaint.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      Because it’s rather obvious, how else would you describe it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- SR2Z 2y ago
  The difference between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance is the difference between watching a fishing boat pass you from miles away vs a cargo ship ramming you. Surveillance in China is much more pervasive and is used to enforce the control of the CCP. An edgy political post in the US is no big deal; in China it's enough to decrease your social credit score or get you a knock on your door. The US absolutely has a leg to stand on here.
DoctorOetker 2y ago
How did China originally bootstrap a scaled-out secure computation infrastructure? Did the West drop the ball, was System Management Mode insufficient? what era and what hypervisor technology was in use in that era? Or does their current secure computation infrastructure stem from less and less widely deployed predecessors and did they bootstrap their own in parallel with the West?
ASalazarMX 2y ago
> So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? Adversary of your government, not necessarily of yours. If at least your government kept the spying within its borders, you could reduce this to "us vs them", but USA spies overseas too, and brokes that information with its partner countries who also spy internationally. Accusing any other country of spying is ridiculous when everyone is doing it.
- tivert 2y ago
  >> So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? > Adversary of your government, not necessarily of yours. You badly misunderstood what I wrote. > Accusing any other country of spying is ridiculous when everyone is doing it. There you go, literally making the same interpretive mistake I was trying to correct. I don't know what the issue is here, but I suspect it has something to do with not actually paying attention to what's being said here, and instead shoehorning the article/conversation into a canned script of a different conversation (one that apparently provides the opportunity for some moral posturing).
  - ASalazarMX 2y ago
    > So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? I think this part is what triggered my response, but I did ignore the second half of your comment. I saw no value on mixing the actual act of recklessly spying domestic and foreign citizens, and the particular legal definition of some government that justifies their own spying. Sure, governments can make laws to spy on their own citizens, but who are they to make laws to spy on the citizens of other governments? Moreso, governments won't respect the letter or the spirit of even their own laws if that suits them. The 21st century has become a clusterfuck of gratuitous spying and profiling, I wonder how the history books will portray this era if humanity somehow recovers from it.

by tivert 2y ago

hypeatei 2y ago

I understand what this law is meant to do because China is the bad guy here, I get it. I'm merely pointing out that the U.S. does not have a leg to stand on when they'll turn around do the exact same thing. I find all the hypocrisy and posturing very tiring.

tivert 2y ago
> I'm merely pointing out that the U.S. does not have a leg to stand on when they'll turn around do the exact same thing. > I find all the hypocrisy and posturing very tiring. I'm merely pointing out that you're severely misunderstanding this. As I said before: there's no universal there, it's all contextual. The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story. It's like a soldier hiding from enemy fire in a foxhole and telling his buddies to do the same. If you wander onto the battlefield and tell him you find his "hypocrisy and posturing very tiring," because he shoots back at his enemy, he'd look at you like you're mad, and he'd be right because you don't get what's going on in a pretty fundamental way.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story. Yes, that take isn't particularly surprising. The hyper fixation and "we're done talking about this" vibe is very strange.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > The hyper fixation and "we're done talking about this" vibe is very strange. "End of story" didn't mean what you seem to think it meant. But we're done talking about this because you seem to be too prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It's a waste of time.
- sididjddjd 2y ago
  the issue is turning everything into a literal battlefield as opposed to market competition with transnational regulatory bodies to align rules. Recent generations have forgotten what the UN was for and seem to valorise violence and militarism in every aspect of life. The generation that fought to avoid that happening again are no longer with us, and it shows. I’m not sure picking a bad guy and defining a position as “in a fox hole” is anything close to objective discussion but like other comments, the path that’s being charted benefits from accepting its inevitability and there being no alternative
  - libertine 2y ago
    > the issue is turning everything into a literal battlefield as opposed to market competition with transnational regulatory bodies to align rules. The problem with autocratic regimes is that they don't seem to care that much about rules, or some rights and duties that a valued by Western societies. You can claim that Western countries at times didn't follow rules either, they're far from perfect. But one thing is to haven't followed the rules on some occasions, the other thing is to do it consistently as a part of your strategy, because there are no consequences to it. Let's pick for example Russia: their regime loves to use the Iraq war and now even the Israel war to make parallels between what they are doing and want to achieve in Ukraine, and what the US did and what Israel is doing. Here we have a country trying to annex another country, and using Genocide as a tool to achieve this goal, and you have Brazil, India, China, and South Africa supporting this. Or China making it difficult for foreign companies to tap into the value of the Chinese internal market, and the amount of IP theft that happened for decades. That's not market competition, and regulators can't enforce anything when you have big players captured by a small elite not playing by the rules. What are you going to do about it?
    - redserk 2y ago
      I can’t disagree at all with what you've stated, but I’ll toss in a nuclear-take here: As a consumer, the IP theft has been fantastic. Prices for many things stayed high for no good reason and market competition hasn’t been doing what it ought to because our market is broken in a number of ways to favor incumbents. It’s been the only effective check on the market in quite a long time. Now is it at all ethical? Perhaps not. But it’s extremely difficult to have sympathy.
- hcfman 2y ago
  "The US is trying to take action to protect itself, end of story" Wow! That almost reads like he believes it. How quaint.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    Because it’s rather obvious, how else would you describe it?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SR2Z 2y ago
The difference between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance is the difference between watching a fishing boat pass you from miles away vs a cargo ship ramming you. Surveillance in China is much more pervasive and is used to enforce the control of the CCP. An edgy political post in the US is no big deal; in China it's enough to decrease your social credit score or get you a knock on your door. The US absolutely has a leg to stand on here.

DoctorOetker 2y ago

How did China originally bootstrap a scaled-out secure computation infrastructure? Did the West drop the ball, was System Management Mode insufficient? what era and what hypervisor technology was in use in that era? Or does their current secure computation infrastructure stem from less and less widely deployed predecessors and did they bootstrap their own in parallel with the West?

ASalazarMX 2y ago

> So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? Adversary of your government, not necessarily of yours. If at least your government kept the spying within its borders, you could reduce this to "us vs them", but USA spies overseas too, and brokes that information with its partner countries who also spy internationally. Accusing any other country of spying is ridiculous when everyone is doing it.

tivert 2y ago
>> So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? > Adversary of your government, not necessarily of yours. You badly misunderstood what I wrote. > Accusing any other country of spying is ridiculous when everyone is doing it. There you go, literally making the same interpretive mistake I was trying to correct. I don't know what the issue is here, but I suspect it has something to do with not actually paying attention to what's being said here, and instead shoehorning the article/conversation into a canned script of a different conversation (one that apparently provides the opportunity for some moral posturing).
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  > So I take it you're totally OK with an adversary of yours spying on you, then? I think this part is what triggered my response, but I did ignore the second half of your comment. I saw no value on mixing the actual act of recklessly spying domestic and foreign citizens, and the particular legal definition of some government that justifies their own spying. Sure, governments can make laws to spy on their own citizens, but who are they to make laws to spy on the citizens of other governments? Moreso, governments won't respect the letter or the spirit of even their own laws if that suits them. The 21st century has become a clusterfuck of gratuitous spying and profiling, I wonder how the history books will portray this era if humanity somehow recovers from it.