Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 280 posts

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#31

Post by PricelessValue »

Haydos585x2 wrote: post #29
PricelessValue wrote: post #23

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china". The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US. Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

> This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future.

What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people.

> What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#32

Post by kasey_junk »

PricelessValue wrote: post #28
bob_theslob646 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?

> How do you even measure that? How about on a per capita basis? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su... Or how about 1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech. 2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance. 3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable dat…

I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to note “nearly 50% of China” is a massive number.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#33

Post by ng12 »

PricelessValue wrote: post #23

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china". The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US. Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

Did you read the article? Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#34

Post by mtgx »

PricelessValue wrote: post #23

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china". The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US. Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

> The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it.

Citation needed. All of those "countries" don't "want it". Perhaps some of the authoritarian leaders in some of those countries want it.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#35

Post by Haydos585x2 »

PricelessValue wrote: post #31
Haydos585x2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

> This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future. What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people. > What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want. You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, eu…

We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country.

It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it.

He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#36

Post by rconti »

PricelessValue wrote: post #28
bob_theslob646 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?

> How do you even measure that? How about on a per capita basis? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su... Or how about 1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech. 2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance. 3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable dat…

So "leading surveillance systems in the world" means:

1. Who "started it" 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)

In other words, you worked backwards to produce vague descriptions of metrics by which your point would be true. If it weren't for the fact that these vague metrics in no way support your assertion.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#37

Post by PricelessValue »

ng12 wrote: post #33
PricelessValue wrote: post #23

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china". The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it. The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US. Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

Did you read the article? Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

> Did you read the article?

Yes.

> Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom.

What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta...

Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference?

If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#38

Post by dictum »

chaostheory wrote: post #30
bob_theslob646 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?

With the UK, this is already well known. They have about a camera per 14 people give or take. Post 9-11, in the US it's also spread. Typically it's in really crime-ridden areas where law and order is barely sustainable (yes these exist). The only one I can't comment much on is Russia. Given that they essentially have a dictatorship, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a big program as well. imo the state of the art s…

Russia pretty much wrote the hypothetical NSA worst-case into law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law

> Most of the act's amendments came into effect on 20 July 2016. Amendments that require telecom operators to store recordings of phone conversations, text messages and users' internet traffic up to 6 months were announced to come into place on 1 July 2018; however, senator Anton Belyakov has submitted a proposal to move the regulations' start date to 2023, because of the extreme amount of data storage technology needed to make fulfilling the requirements possible.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#39

Post by thinkpad20 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #24
justicezyx wrote: post #10

A side note: The terrorist attacks (what the CCP states) in Xinjiang was rampant. Every years hundreds of innocent people were killed. And due to media control, those reports seldom see publicity outside of small forums in the first a few months following the events. ps1: Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments. ps2: This not a defend. Merely suggest one of the…

"...Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments...." ??? If "...oppressed minorities..." commit acts wherein "...hundreds of innocent people were killed..." aren't they "terrorists"? Or am I thinking about this whole thing wrong?

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think the parent post simply meant that they were not passing judgment on the justification of the violence.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#40

Post by PricelessValue »

rconti wrote: post #36
PricelessValue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you even measure that? How about on a per capita basis? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su... Or how about 1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech. 2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance. 3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable dat…

So "leading surveillance systems in the world" means: 1. Who "started it" 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!) In other words, you worked backwards to produce vague descriptions of metrics by which your point would be true. If it weren't for the fact that these vague metrics in no way support your assertion.

>1. Who "started it"

Not just who started. The quality and sophistication.

> 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)

Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?

Post reply on HN