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

We Chat, They Watch

citizenlab.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#161

Post by TaylorAlexander »

ivalm wrote: post #144
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure my messages on iMessage are not used to train censorship applications by the NSA What basis do you have for this certainty?

On the basis that there is no automatic censorship of user content shown to me via iMessage. I am highly certain that my friends can send me arbitrary (within technical reason) text and images and not get censored. This is not the case with WeChat in China right now. Given societal norms I think there is a strong expectation that my iMessages will not be censored in the near future either. This means there is little…

Ah, sorry, I erroneously read "censorship" as "surveillance".

I suppose there is not really the same kind of overt deployed censorship in the US like there is in China. I do personally think that the NSA somehow gets most messages sent in the US, but I have no idea what they would do with it or if that hypothesis is reasonable.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#162

Post by jhwang5 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #151
nyolfen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

putting minorities in concentration camps and state sanctioned ip theft are probably worth considering

So like, the way America did with the Japanese? And I support enforcement of borders, but the conditions for detention of illegal immigrants has drawn recent comparisons. Not as bad as communist countries, of course, but not much of a moral high ground either.

In the U.S., we send them to private prisons instead and make them do free labor.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#163

Post by IncRnd »

FreakyT wrote: post #36
bgorman wrote: post #3

Did anyone actually think WeChat communications are secure? Do we have reason to believe iMessage and Whatsapp are more secure?

This narrative of false equivalency is dangerous, IMO. WeChat has been proven to be a heavily monitored and censored network. Whatever security failings iMessage and WhatsApp have, they pale in comparison to what's in place for WeChat.

You misread your parent post. Bgorrman didn't say that WeChat being insecure means that iMessage and Whatsapp are insecure. Bgorrman questioned if we have reason to believe that iMessge and Whatsapp are more secure than WeChat.

A implies B & C is not the same as asking whether B & C share the same qualities as A.

You actually created a strawman in order to say that your parent had a false equivalence.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#164

Post by MattGaiser »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #157
MattGaiser wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A state that is not above its own law.

So generally, you feel that when the executive branch exceeds it's power or circumvents checks and balances, that those responsible are prosecuted?

No, just that there is such a concept as "exceeds its power" to the point that when they do, their decisions are not legally valid.

A governor/President cannot go and throw a bunch of journalists in jail. Even if he did, the courts would let them out again.

In a communist dictatorship, there is no power outside the executive.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#165

Post by cyphar »

elefanten wrote: post #136
cyphar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with several aspects of your depiction of the US's "robust court system" (especially in the case of mass surveillance). There have been several attempts by citizens to sue the US Government for their illegal and indiscriminate surveillance programs, but have been stonewalled for years by government lawyers arguing that such cases should not happen in public courts (where they could be held accountable) due…

In aggregate, the systems of governance and human rights that we endorse for the world will have a direct impact on our lives in the long run. If you think you're marginally more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for littering because of super secret iMessage collection... why not consider the marginal effects of turning a blind eye to (and contributing to the economic expansion of) an illiberal, anti-democratic p…

I'm not endorsing, nor turning a blind eye to China's government. I was responding to a comment which was only critising China, while arguing that the US has all of these protections and thus was effectively endorsing the US government (to the point of saying that they prefer US government surveillance). I on the other hand, do not endorse the vast majority of the US government's actions, hence the criticism.

It's a bit silly to require every comment which critises the US to also have to include a disclaimer that "yes, I also think China/Russia/other-enemy-of-the-US is bad".

> They seem to already be comfortable [...] and influencing various levels of your government.

I'm really not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Australian government, I'm not aware of any substantial evidence that the CCP has actually influenced our government. Our government is friendly with China and does many things against the interests of the public as a result, but there is far more evidence of just ordinary domestic corruption.

I will also point out that there is strong evidence that the US (in particular, the CIA) effectively helped facilitate a soft-coup in Australia in 1975 (in response to Menzies' threat to close Pine Gap because the US lied about what it was used for). Oh, and the CIA offered $24m of laundered money to the Opposition for that election in order to help them win -- if only there was a word to describe that...

So if we're going to point-score about foreign influence in the Australian government -- the US literally replaced our prime minister in a (to quote Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer) "kind of Chile coup". But I'd love it if nobody interfered with other countries' democratically-elected governments.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#166

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #98

It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and cannot be shared.

>For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”

This is the first I've heard about this. Had a look at the site and the content loaded doesn't seem to be malicious (technically), just content on some questionable areas about Biden.

What's going on here?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#167

Post by Cyph0n »

cyphar wrote: post #149
Cyph0n wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the key question is -- do you live in or have any connection to China? If not, then I would go with the CCP surveillance because there is no obvious mechanism for such surveillance to harm you directly. Tell that to the forcibly disappeared political dissidents, or to the Uyghurs who are being "re-educated" as we speak. And remember, even if you're not connected to China now , that can always change in the futu…

I'm not sure I see where we're disagreeing. Yes, if you have a connection to China then you should opt to evade CCP surveillance and there are many CCP policies which are awful towards groups in China. That's what I said. My point is that if you have a connection to the US (as all 5-EYES and allied countries do), then today that has a more direct impact on your life than any theoretical future risk that the CCP will…

If you only consider the direct, personal impact on you as an individual with no current or future ties to China, then sure, the risk is probably lower. However, it is important to note that CCP surveillance is much more intrusive in general.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're not taking into account the fact that your use of CCP-backed services implicitly contributes to human rights and surveillance abuses within China. Once you consider this, I think minimizing the use of these products and services is worth incurring the added "risk" of being surveilled by the Five Eyes.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#168

Post by tialaramex »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #151
nyolfen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

putting minorities in concentration camps and state sanctioned ip theft are probably worth considering

So like, the way America did with the Japanese? And I support enforcement of borders, but the conditions for detention of illegal immigrants has drawn recent comparisons. Not as bad as communist countries, of course, but not much of a moral high ground either.

Ya, Japanese internment is _exactly_ why other countries are sceptical of this supposed American commitment to liberty.

The important thing to note is that America interned _American Citizens_ merely because they had Japanese ancestry. Just like America's habit of executing its own citizens (including juveniles) and torturing its own citizens, we can't have any faith in your country treating our own people well when it sees fit to teat its own people worse than dirt.

Britain interned German citizens in WW2 (but only a relatively small proportion of them). But Britain never even considered interning its own citizens for having German ancestors. What sort of message would that send?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#169

Post by waste_monk »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #151
nyolfen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

putting minorities in concentration camps and state sanctioned ip theft are probably worth considering

So like, the way America did with the Japanese? And I support enforcement of borders, but the conditions for detention of illegal immigrants has drawn recent comparisons. Not as bad as communist countries, of course, but not much of a moral high ground either.

There's a pretty big difference between internment camps and literally keeping prisoners so you can harvest organs from them (without anaesthetic, often fatally) on demand, my dude. Not that America hasn't done a lot of bad stuff, but they definately do have a significant moral high ground over China.
Post reply on HN