4 ms·

I find two things incredibly ironic: 1) The UK willingly submits all of its net traffic to monitoring, snooping and supervision by a Chinese firm. This is mind

by jwr 13y ago

I find two things incredibly ironic: 1) The UK willingly submits all of its net traffic to monitoring, snooping and supervision by a Chinese firm. This is mindboggling. Why worry about NSA's ECHELON or PRISM now, when the government has just passed a law requiring every packet to be inspected by a Chinese system. 2) Let's learn from those who are best at censorship. Obviously China has significant experience in that area. UK has a lot to catch up, but they're working on it. Think about it -- if somebody told you 10 years ago that the United Kingdom will outsource country-wide Internet traffic monitoring, policing and censoring to Chinese companies, you'd call them a nutjob.

mtgx 13y ago
I find it extremely unfortunate that more of the "democratic" countries are now starting to see China's model of censorship and surveillance of its population as something to aspire to. This is not just a one-off. It's a trend. They all seem to want what the Chinese government has (full control over its population), while still "pretending" it's a democracy and everyone's rights are unharmed.
- smackay 13y ago
  There's an unfortunate view in the learned press that business-like governments such as Singapore and China are able to work efficiently and generally get things done and are generally to be admired (though not always publicly). Combine that with the UK Government's Big Sister approach to managing the population and the worst effects of political correctness and you can see where this is all heading - a country safely protected from itself under the watchful gaze of those that know what's best for us - Downton Abbey on a grand scale.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    It's unfortunate but it's true - China has the advantage that without those pesky elections to worry about it can take a longer term view of things and be planning over a 10 year period, not a 5 year period with re-election and all the populist stuff that requires. Obviously that's only part of the story but the discussion certainly becomes more "interesting" than it did in the 80s when democracy seemed to give better results across the board having the moral and economic high ground. Not for a moment endorsing the Chinese approach, just saying that there is a more interesting debate than there used to be.
    - waps 13y ago
      Too bad that actual planning seems to take a backseat to "my own swiss bank account in 10 years" planning. The same problem "islamic democracies" (or the "islamic republic") or dictatorships have. And then western (and Chinese) companies come in who promise personal kickbacks in trade for contracts. And soon the situation happens that companies who don't do this simply can't get any business at all. China will get killed by it's own politicians much quicker than any western democracy. They're still growing, today it's easy for them because China is growing at 7% per year. It will get hard soon and things will change. Fast.
      - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
        Because no Western politician ever made decisions thinking about a non-exec directorship at some point in the future or campaign contributions. Politics is a mucky business full of self interest the world over, let's not pretend that's a problem for China alone.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  You might not always get what you want, but the converse is more frequently true. For example, positions of power and authority tend to be occupied by the sort of person who actively seeks out greater power and authority. In contrast, those with no real desire to dominate and control others neither seek nor achieve power. As a result, our elite political and law enforcement institutions are inevitably dominated by an authoritarian culture and mindset. The authoritarian mind is characterised by a desire to dominate and control others. The more invasive, disruptive and widespread the control, the more satisfying it is to the authoritarian, and the greater the validation of their elite status. Sex; particularly issues of sexual morality; is a tremendously intimate and personal factor. It is this very intimacy that makes the exertion of control over sexual behaviour so very compelling: Control over sexual behaviour is like crack cocaine to the authoritarian mind. Time and time again throughout history, those in power have sought to control the sexual behaviour of their subjects, a motive that is exactly equivalent to the alpha male in the pack controlling access to the harem, and reminding all the beta males of their status by rubbing their noses in their inability to mate. Technology is a lever - it gives increased power to those who wield it. Modern technology is already enabling those in power to gain greater control over their subjects. It is inevitable that technology will embed itself ever more intimately in our lives, and it is inevitable that this technology will be used by the alpha males in our society to exert their domination and suppression over the rest of the population - to mock, to belittle and to abuse those who are not in power. This is a sad, but inevitable truth.
- rmc 13y ago
  Conversely when people in China (or elsewhere) campaign for more liberty and freedom, the Chinese government can point to the USA/UK/EU/etc and say "Look they block things too!". Likewise when UK/EU/USA/etc. tell China to stop blocking things, China turns around and says "But you block things!"
timthorn 13y ago
Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection, and there are ISPs who provide unfiltered connectivity. (Eg as discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595) The government is proposing that they may bring legislation to Parliament if the industry doesn't do something to thinkofthechildren, but what shape that might take is not yet clear.
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  > Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection Correct. That happened in the past already when ISPs were required to block access to the pirate bay.
  - omh 13y ago
    The Pirate Bay block was not a law imposed on all ISPs. It was a court order imposed by a judge for a specific case brought by the recording industries against the few largest ISPs individually. Part of the case was basically that the ISPs already had filtering systems in place (in that case for the IWF child abuse blocks - again, not required by law but installed "voluntarily"). So the industry essentially said that adding TPB to the existing blocklist wouldn't be too much of a burden. (I believe that similar orders have expanded it to cover a few more sites since, but not sure whether those cover all the same ISPs again).
    - replete 13y ago
      The Pirate Bay ban has extended to most of the big ISPs, BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, etc. British.
- rmc 13y ago
  Exactly. Let's all remember that we often call politicans sleeazy corrupt ineffective busybodies who'll appear for the opening of an envelope, and who make statements and press releases to manipulate the press & public. However when something like this comes along, suddely politicans are disciplined, determined, principled fighters of smut who can get their way....
walshemj 13y ago
And giving another state access to black mail information is not a good idea Is Huawei one of Lynton crosbys customers?
stef25 13y ago
Isn't it just using Chinese hardware? EDIT - I understand the hardware may be doing more than what it says on the box.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  Michael Hayden (former CIA head) says there is 'hard evidence' that Huawei has spied for the Chinese government. However he hasn't released any evidence. To be honest I don't really trust the CIA/NSA or Huawei. I think you just have to assume that if they _can_ spy on you, they _will_.
__alexs 13y ago
The article says it's only TalkTalk's traffic that is monitored by Huawei, not all the traffic in the UK. Cameron just thinks it's awesome and would be happy if it was all of the traffic. Which actually is probably even worse.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  It also says "For almost a decade, Huawei has been a core part of telecoms infrastructure in the UK".
qwyck 13y ago
I would like to point out that this article does not state that all UK traffic is being filtered by Huawei. The article mentions David Cameron praises the filtering system used by a single UK ISP, TalkTalk, and has demanded that similar measures be enforced by other UK ISPs. The article then describes the filtering system that TalkTalk uses, which is provided by Huawei. Ofcom (an independent regulator) reports (http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/) that TalkTalk has a 17% market share at the end of 2012. So not all of the UK's net traffic is filtered through a service provided by Huawei.
beedogs 13y ago
> Think about it -- if somebody told you 10 years ago that the United Kingdom will outsource country-wide Internet traffic monitoring, policing and censoring to Chinese companies, you'd call them a nutjob. And today we call them Prime Minister. Fuck.
- vidarh 13y ago
  To be fair, a substantial number of people call whichever prime minister is current a nutjob (or worse), so that doesn't seem to be a big change.
roy_x 13y ago
The only solution is: create more porn net traffic to blind all those inspection ... :)

by jwr 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

I find it extremely unfortunate that more of the "democratic" countries are now starting to see China's model of censorship and surveillance of its population as something to aspire to. This is not just a one-off. It's a trend. They all seem to want what the Chinese government has (full control over its population), while still "pretending" it's a democracy and everyone's rights are unharmed.

smackay 13y ago
There's an unfortunate view in the learned press that business-like governments such as Singapore and China are able to work efficiently and generally get things done and are generally to be admired (though not always publicly). Combine that with the UK Government's Big Sister approach to managing the population and the worst effects of political correctness and you can see where this is all heading - a country safely protected from itself under the watchful gaze of those that know what's best for us - Downton Abbey on a grand scale.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  It's unfortunate but it's true - China has the advantage that without those pesky elections to worry about it can take a longer term view of things and be planning over a 10 year period, not a 5 year period with re-election and all the populist stuff that requires. Obviously that's only part of the story but the discussion certainly becomes more "interesting" than it did in the 80s when democracy seemed to give better results across the board having the moral and economic high ground. Not for a moment endorsing the Chinese approach, just saying that there is a more interesting debate than there used to be.
  - waps 13y ago
    Too bad that actual planning seems to take a backseat to "my own swiss bank account in 10 years" planning. The same problem "islamic democracies" (or the "islamic republic") or dictatorships have. And then western (and Chinese) companies come in who promise personal kickbacks in trade for contracts. And soon the situation happens that companies who don't do this simply can't get any business at all. China will get killed by it's own politicians much quicker than any western democracy. They're still growing, today it's easy for them because China is growing at 7% per year. It will get hard soon and things will change. Fast.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      Because no Western politician ever made decisions thinking about a non-exec directorship at some point in the future or campaign contributions. Politics is a mucky business full of self interest the world over, let's not pretend that's a problem for China alone.
w_t_payne 13y ago
You might not always get what you want, but the converse is more frequently true. For example, positions of power and authority tend to be occupied by the sort of person who actively seeks out greater power and authority. In contrast, those with no real desire to dominate and control others neither seek nor achieve power. As a result, our elite political and law enforcement institutions are inevitably dominated by an authoritarian culture and mindset. The authoritarian mind is characterised by a desire to dominate and control others. The more invasive, disruptive and widespread the control, the more satisfying it is to the authoritarian, and the greater the validation of their elite status. Sex; particularly issues of sexual morality; is a tremendously intimate and personal factor. It is this very intimacy that makes the exertion of control over sexual behaviour so very compelling: Control over sexual behaviour is like crack cocaine to the authoritarian mind. Time and time again throughout history, those in power have sought to control the sexual behaviour of their subjects, a motive that is exactly equivalent to the alpha male in the pack controlling access to the harem, and reminding all the beta males of their status by rubbing their noses in their inability to mate. Technology is a lever - it gives increased power to those who wield it. Modern technology is already enabling those in power to gain greater control over their subjects. It is inevitable that technology will embed itself ever more intimately in our lives, and it is inevitable that this technology will be used by the alpha males in our society to exert their domination and suppression over the rest of the population - to mock, to belittle and to abuse those who are not in power. This is a sad, but inevitable truth.
rmc 13y ago
Conversely when people in China (or elsewhere) campaign for more liberty and freedom, the Chinese government can point to the USA/UK/EU/etc and say "Look they block things too!". Likewise when UK/EU/USA/etc. tell China to stop blocking things, China turns around and says "But you block things!"

timthorn 13y ago

Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection, and there are ISPs who provide unfiltered connectivity. (Eg as discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595) The government is proposing that they may bring legislation to Parliament if the industry doesn't do something to thinkofthechildren, but what shape that might take is not yet clear.

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection Correct. That happened in the past already when ISPs were required to block access to the pirate bay.
- omh 13y ago
  The Pirate Bay block was not a law imposed on all ISPs. It was a court order imposed by a judge for a specific case brought by the recording industries against the few largest ISPs individually. Part of the case was basically that the ISPs already had filtering systems in place (in that case for the IWF child abuse blocks - again, not required by law but installed "voluntarily"). So the industry essentially said that adding TPB to the existing blocklist wouldn't be too much of a burden. (I believe that similar orders have expanded it to cover a few more sites since, but not sure whether those cover all the same ISPs again).
  - replete 13y ago
    The Pirate Bay ban has extended to most of the big ISPs, BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, etc. British.
rmc 13y ago
Exactly. Let's all remember that we often call politicans sleeazy corrupt ineffective busybodies who'll appear for the opening of an envelope, and who make statements and press releases to manipulate the press & public. However when something like this comes along, suddely politicans are disciplined, determined, principled fighters of smut who can get their way....

walshemj 13y ago

And giving another state access to black mail information is not a good idea Is Huawei one of Lynton crosbys customers?

stef25 13y ago

Isn't it just using Chinese hardware? EDIT - I understand the hardware may be doing more than what it says on the box.

cpncrunch 13y ago
Michael Hayden (former CIA head) says there is 'hard evidence' that Huawei has spied for the Chinese government. However he hasn't released any evidence. To be honest I don't really trust the CIA/NSA or Huawei. I think you just have to assume that if they _can_ spy on you, they _will_.

__alexs 13y ago

The article says it's only TalkTalk's traffic that is monitored by Huawei, not all the traffic in the UK. Cameron just thinks it's awesome and would be happy if it was all of the traffic. Which actually is probably even worse.

cpncrunch 13y ago
It also says "For almost a decade, Huawei has been a core part of telecoms infrastructure in the UK".

qwyck 13y ago

I would like to point out that this article does not state that all UK traffic is being filtered by Huawei. The article mentions David Cameron praises the filtering system used by a single UK ISP, TalkTalk, and has demanded that similar measures be enforced by other UK ISPs. The article then describes the filtering system that TalkTalk uses, which is provided by Huawei. Ofcom (an independent regulator) reports (http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/) that TalkTalk has a 17% market share at the end of 2012. So not all of the UK's net traffic is filtered through a service provided by Huawei.

beedogs 13y ago

> Think about it -- if somebody told you 10 years ago that the United Kingdom will outsource country-wide Internet traffic monitoring, policing and censoring to Chinese companies, you'd call them a nutjob. And today we call them Prime Minister. Fuck.

vidarh 13y ago
To be fair, a substantial number of people call whichever prime minister is current a nutjob (or worse), so that doesn't seem to be a big change.

roy_x 13y ago

The only solution is: create more porn net traffic to blind all those inspection ... :)