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

China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 226 posts

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#201

Post by cphoover »

irrational wrote: post #198
magduf wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we start banning Chinese phones we'll buy American ones come in instead. Huh? America doesn't make any phones, and worse, simply does not even have the technology to make phones if they wanted to. America does not have the technology needed to make the screens for them, most notably: the screen technology is all in Asia.

It doesn't have the technology or the manufacturing capability?

Apple owns the patents for it's phones. Right? They are just manufactured by foxconn (Taiwanese).

Samsung is a Korean company.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#202

Post by mikeash »

scrumper wrote: post #180
mikeash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the inversion is a useful way to look at it. Here’s the right way to look at it: what do you consider to be the acceptable odds of being imprisoned for 15 years while traveling to a foreign country? And what are the acceptable odds for being killed? I don’t have a concrete number for either one, but they wouldn’t be much different. Consider also that your odds of dying in a traffic accident are much hig…

I'm not rational enough to really get behind your "right way" to look at it - it's a bit too homo economicus for me! Sure, the acceptable odds for both are similar and very low, but the outcomes are vastly different. Once my dice roll has bought me into contact either one of those possibilities, I am passionately invested in making sure it's 15 years in prison. (Edit: such thinking is of course why plea bargains work…

Yes, once you’re looking at one of those two possibilities, you really want the prison. But before that point, almost your entire focus is going to be on not getting either one.

My point isn’t that they’re basically the same in all aspects, it’s that they’re basically the same in terms of their input to the decision of whether to travel to a given place.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#203

Post by mikeash »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #188
mikeash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was already a convicted drug trafficker. I don’t see any indication that his original 15-year sentence was improper. It is possible that he was falsely convicted, of course, but I don’t know that this is more likely in China than elsewhere. Suddenly changing his sentence to death is rather suspicious, but at least for me it doesn’t make a huge difference compared to a 15-year sentence. Random anecdote: I just got…

>Suddenly changing his sentence to death is rather suspicious, but at least for me it doesn’t make a huge difference compared to a 15-year sentence. There's a huge difference, from a human rights stand point for non-violent crimes there is a very noticeable difference.

Of course. But we’re talking about the potential impact on tourism here.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#204

Post by mikeash »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #184
mikeash wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that her failure to comply with work visa rules was actually the right thing to do, and thus her punishment for it is unfair?

Chinese work visa rules contain requirements like you must do P and you can’t do P. Compliance is impossible given the contradiction. Instead, you need to go with the flow like everyone else, China is not a rule of law country, they will just use the law on you if they don’t like you (and given the way the laws are written, you are necessarily breaking something). It is also important to read sources like https://www…

I can’t find a definitive answer of exactly what she was accused of, but it sounds like she just didn’t have a work permit at all. I doubt there’s a requirement to not have a permit to work.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#205

Post by 3pt14159 »

magduf wrote: post #173
3pt14159 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either China is doing this so they can have something to retreat on that seems gracious and careful (i.e., it's a complete ploy) or they're completely misreading Canadian sentiment. Canadians tend to give and give and bend and bend, but it really comes to it they snap in a way that I don't think the Chinese understand. We have way more leverage over China than they have over us. We sell them commodities. They sell us…

>If we start banning Chinese phones we'll buy American ones come in instead. Huh? America doesn't make any phones, and worse, simply does not even have the technology to make phones if they wanted to. America does not have the technology needed to make the screens for them, most notably: the screen technology is all in Asia.

I'm not unaware that iPhones are physically constructed in China. If we had tariffs on Chinese phones only a small portion of the tariff would fall on the overall cost of an iPhone.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#206

Post by learc83 »

yorwba wrote: post #156
learc83 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So my generalized advice is to comply with the law In a country where millions of people are held in reeducation camps for practicing the wrong religion, the "law" as written is a joke. From friends living their, it's impossible to actually strictly follow what's on the books, particularly for foreigners. You have to know the current expectations, what's being enforced by the local government etc... What matters isn…

> From friends living their, it's impossible to actually strictly follow what's on the books, particularly for foreigners. Could you give an example of laws that your friends found impossible to follow? If they don't speak Chinese, that would explain it, because obviously you first need to understand what the law says before you can comply.

That's not the case.

Check https://www.chinalawblog.com/ for some examples if you want to.

Easy ones are:

You can be held criminally liable for mistakes your employer makes, since you have no control over and likely no knowledge of what "illegal" actions your employer might be taking, there is no way to comply with the law.

If you sell something to a Chinese company and they decide that they aren't satisfied with your product (maybe they just don't want to pay), you can be charged with a crime for selling "defective" products.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#207

Post by learc83 »

mikeash wrote: post #204
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese work visa rules contain requirements like you must do P and you can’t do P. Compliance is impossible given the contradiction. Instead, you need to go with the flow like everyone else, China is not a rule of law country, they will just use the law on you if they don’t like you (and given the way the laws are written, you are necessarily breaking something). It is also important to read sources like https://www…

I can’t find a definitive answer of exactly what she was accused of, but it sounds like she just didn’t have a work permit at all. I doubt there’s a requirement to not have a permit to work.

I don't know the specifics of this case either, but people are jailed and deported regularly for mistakes made by their employer that they didn't and couldn't have known about.

However, I was never talking about this case in particular. I was talking about the assumption that if you just follow the law as written you'll be fine.

You have no individual rights while in China, and the law is intentionally vague and arbitrarily enforced. This isn't an accident--the system is designed so that anyone can be prosecuted if the government decides it's necessary. If you keep your head down and do what everyone else is doing, statistically you'll probably be fine. However, as a foreigner living in China, whether you break the law isn't up to you.

If a company decides they didn't like the product or service you provide and accuses you of selling defective goods, you can be criminally charged and convicted. If a Chinese citizen overcharges you and you don't want to pay, you can be criminally charged and convicted.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#208

Post by pseudolus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #191
pseudolus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as independent as you would believe. The number of applications judges actually refuse for search warrants and wiretaps is miniscule. All too often they act merely as extensions for police departments.

> All too often [judges[ act merely as extensions for police departments Empirical data disagrees with your assertion [1]. Judges act as an effective check on prosecutors. There are systemic issues which mitigate this check, e.g. cash bail and plea bargaining. But the difference between America and China in judicial independence and prosecution procedure is night and day. [1] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/v…

I don't think anyone would dispute that there's a huge gulf between the US and China relative to judicial independence. The article you reference refers to impartiality at the trial or adversarial stage. I'm referring to the actions of judges in granting search warrants and wiretaps where there are very few checks in place and all too often the judiciary acts as little more than a rubber stamp that's entirely too deferential to police and prosecutors. By way of example, in Utah apparently half of search warrants are issued within 3 minutes [0]. How can one credibly assert that the judiciary is acting as a gatekeeper to the excesses of the state when a warrant is signed off in three minutes? Additionally, Utah is by no means exceptional in this regard.

[0]: https://www.apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#209

Post by darkpuma »

mikeash wrote: post #147
darkpuma wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps as somebody who travels in China, apologizing for China in this way makes him feel safer?

Pointing out that this case does not influence a rational evaluation of the risk/reward of travel to China is hardly “apologizing for China.”

If brushing off a capricious upgrade of a 15 year sentence to a death sentence isn't apologist, then I don't know what is. But don't worry, with this ridiculous display I'm sure you won't wind up on their naughty list anytime soon.

Re: China sentences Canadian man to death in drug case linked to Huawei row

#210

Post by Markoff »

Cypher wrote: post #112
foldr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If we start banning Chinese phones we'll buy American ones come in instead. Which American phones are these? The iPhone isn't made in the US, it's made by Foxconn.

Nokia duh...

R&D + production done by Foxconn

HMD it's just sales department slapping Nokia sticker on Foxconn phones

Post reply on HN