Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views' • Hacker News Board

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#51

Post by ataturk » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:25 PM UTC

vectorEQ wrote: post #30

any country with online capabilities have been doing this for a long time now. governments also like brand-defence... don't understand why people need to point at specific ones (*usualy not country of media origin) instead of trying to speak about the moar broad and global issue of this internet policing / trying to discredit/track/stop people with differing views.

Not sure why you got downvoted for telling the truth. Shareblue and CTR are both comapanies whose employees do nothing all day but shill on message forums and muddy the waters in order to sow confusion online. I am 100% certain it has been going on since at least the Bush II Administration in the US.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#52

Post by shiven » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:33 PM UTC

yipopov wrote: post #36

tehlike wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet is just one channel where you can express opinions. Many journalists are jailed even today based on their opinions, and I feel it's on us tech people to enable them the free speech they deserve.

>I feel it's on us tech people to enable them the free speech they deserve. It's clearly not a technical problem, so it's foolish to try to find a technical solution. This kind of silicon valley elitist Tellerism is doing more harm than good in cases like these.

Actually, it is. It is very much a technical problem. Technology has not yet provided a super-fast, truly decentralized, perfectly uncensorable “Internet for All” solution. If we had that, a lot of this discussion would be moot.

Someone in Dalat could teach Vietnamese to any number of foreigners, without any adversary being the wiser. Anyone in China could read up on Tiannenmen Square or the “Free Tibet” movement without fear of arrest. People in Indonesia could watch any film they wish.

“Laws” in any country on this planet are not immutable, immaculate/divine, absolute, or axiomatic. They can and should be changed — regardless of the concerns of those in power. And the only reliable way to ensure change is education, information and discussion — all unfettered, uncensored and unbridled.

Until technology guarantees that, we as ‘techies’ have not delivered. And please, don’t tell me about Tor and “teh darkwubs” — that is not a realistic solution for 99% of the online population — too slow and still not bulletproof.

Technology needs to do better.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#53

Post by hailk » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #50

bergoid wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Orwellian implications of these definitions are hair-raising. This turns crime into something that is in the eye of the beholder and lies the burden of proof upon the accused.

Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be. Seems pretty sensible…

I'm unclear about lawful differentiation between both sentences that makes one hate speech and other not. Or is it the manner of delivery?

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#54

Post by ThrowAwayFSp » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

Para2016 wrote: post #47

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to operate somewhere they're going to have to comply with local laws. What is your comprehensive alternate?

Yea, totally agree with you. I hope Facebook helps the Vietnamese agents track down these people and dispose of them. The law is the law, you know.

Yeah! You got that right!. It's all relative. If their culture is to police facebook and dispose of people who has the "wrong opinion", you have to accept that. It's their culture. Don't be a bigot.

/s

Thank God I can be sarcastic. We're not in Vietnam, Iran, Bangladesh, etc.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#55

Post by lmm » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:42 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #50

bergoid wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Orwellian implications of these definitions are hair-raising. This turns crime into something that is in the eye of the beholder and lies the burden of proof upon the accused.

Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be. Seems pretty sensible…

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/19/paul-gascoig... is the concrete case to look at here. A tasteless, mean-spirited thing to say it may have been, but it should not have been a crime.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#56

Post by orf » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:43 PM UTC

hailk wrote: post #53

orf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be. Seems pretty sensible…

I'm unclear about lawful differentiation between both sentences that makes one hate speech and other not. Or is it the manner of delivery?

It's all about the manner of delivery: "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden"[1]

Notice the and condition, it has to be threatening and intended to harass for example. Just causing someone distress without the intend to harass or threaten is not illegal, so someone feeling upset about what you said is perfectly fine. But if you said it to threaten them, and that's clear from your delivery or manner, then yeah it's not OK.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_Unit...

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#57

Post by orf » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #55

orf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be. Seems pretty sensible…

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/19/paul-gascoig... is the concrete case to look at here. A tasteless, mean-spirited thing to say it may have been, but it should not have been a crime.

The charge seems ok to me, and he was not charged with hate speech.

At the end of the day, 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion, and so he is guilty. It's hardly the "big evil government cracking down on this nice man's (non existent) right to be racist".

Perhaps in a one on one situation it wouldn't be a crime, but doing infront of a thousand people is clearly very bad and distressing. Perhaps it's down to poor judgement, but that's not an excuse.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#58

Post by freeflight » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

Para2016 wrote: post #47

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to operate somewhere they're going to have to comply with local laws. What is your comprehensive alternate?

Yea, totally agree with you. I hope Facebook helps the Vietnamese agents track down these people and dispose of them. The law is the law, you know.

Dispose of them? Neither the article nor the report it's based on, say anything at all about arresting people, they are pretty much only shutting down YouTube and Facebook accounts.

The same has been happening in the US and plenty of other non-Communist countries, over here we just prefer calling it "War against terror" or "You broke the ToS!".

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#59

Post by notduncansmith » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #41

kebman wrote: post #40

Let me guess... Facebook and YouTube are going to fold, yet again.

If they want to operate somewhere they're going to have to comply with local laws. What is your comprehensive alternate?

I heard someone mention once that Richard Stallman’s extremism is valuable (in part) because, by setting one end of the spectrum so far out, he moves the middle in his direction.

By cowing to oppressive government demands, rather than support the side of the spectrum they were born on, Facebook and YouTube allow the middle to move towards oppression.

In the same way that you do not reward a child’s tantrum with their desired outcome, you do not demonstrate to the world that they can have both YouTube and oppressive governments; unless, of course, you’re more interested in brief-but-immediate comfort than extended-but-delayed happiness.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#60

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

mrslave wrote: post #20

London Metropolitan Police already has an Online Hate Speech Hub with varying reports of staff (5-20?). This is in spite of admissions they do not have enough resources to respond to property offenses.

They almost certainly get a lot of reports of hate speech, and it is actually an offence, so having some level of specialist response is probably justified. What's wrong is ignoring any category of crime where there are victims, property or otherwise.

London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced.

Some background: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmha... (caution, includes a couple of example offensive images)

Specifically one of London's black MPs, Dianne Abbott, recieves something like 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. After the murder of Jo Cox by a far right extremist this stuff has to be taken seriously.

More context from the report: "The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 to remove unlawful terrorist material from the internet, with a focus on UK- based material. Twitter, which has been a magnet for jihadist propaganda, said that it had a close relationship with the CTIRU. 38 Google described CTIRU as a ‘trusted flagger’ with “an accuracy rate of around 80%”