171–180 of 481 posts
I'm constantly seeing westerners whine about Chinese human rights violations while simultaneously ignoring the HR violations occurring everywhere else, especially in the west. American cops routinely kill people. Yet, how many people have died in Hong Kong because of their protests? The notion that China lacks 'proper civil society' is in my mind rooted in a western sense of orientalism and good old fashioned racism.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So at least park of the justification here is that we have to comply with Americas foreign policy?
Sometimes USA still manages to do the right thing it seems.
- Churchill (I think)
The justification is that the equipment presents a national security risk. If that's true, how is it reasonable to allow this equipment to operate in the UK for 7 more years? Doesn't that mean the UK is willingly under national security risk for 7 years? Unless, of course, there was never a security risk...
This is a good example of the kinds of tradeoffs which must be made at the highest levels of public service. > Doesn't that mean the UK is willingly under national security risk for 7 years? No, and I'll come on to why in a second. Huawei, just like any Chinese corporation operating overseas, is an attack vector for intelligence gathering. Anyone presenting a counter-argument to this is either a shill for the Chinese…
Isn't this contradicted by secret courts approving NAS warrants, loopholes like meta-data can is legal to collect, digital data is considered different that data you have on paper in your home etc. If CIA, NSA has some judge approval to ask Apple access to someone data and keep it secret do you think Apple(or Google) can challenge the secret orders?
What if a judge produces soem secret order so Apple and Google provide full access to everything do you think some manager or developer will make this public and suffer a fait similar or worse as Snowden? IMO we people in the west we sometimes forget how corrupt people in power are and how exceptions to laws and constitution can be found when national security is mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good example of the kinds of tradeoffs which must be made at the highest levels of public service. > Doesn't that mean the UK is willingly under national security risk for 7 years? No, and I'll come on to why in a second. Huawei, just like any Chinese corporation operating overseas, is an attack vector for intelligence gathering. Anyone presenting a counter-argument to this is either a shill for the Chinese…
https://news.sky.com/story/mi5-chief-shrugs-off-us-warnings-...
The link states that Sir Andrew Parker (head of MI5) doesn't believe that the inclusion of Huawei in UK telecoms infrastructure will have a negative impact on the UK's relationship with the US.
The US has been emphatic that it could: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51581095
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Percentagewise, China hasn't done any better than South Korea or Taiwan at lifting their populace out of poverty. So I don't see how that comes anywhere close to excusing China's human rights abuses. And while SK and Taiwan only became democracies relatively recently, their human rights abuses even before then pale in comparison to what China is currently doing to Uighurs, Tibetans, and religious minorities in genera…
I think you're understating the human rights impact of going from third world to first world living standards. You like having your teeth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism gets brought out too fast to dismiss discussion. Democratic systems project their values by demonstrating them. A democratic state that cannot show that its values work will have no ability to demand of others to emulate it. In that context the failures of the US (as it is de-facto the standard-bearer of political liberalism in a broad sense), have real influence. When the Chinese look around the world a…
[flagged]
And as far as communications infrastructure is concerned it's relevant too. In countries like Germany or Eastern Europe in particular the behaviour of espionage among allies over recent years has created an atmosphere of "well everyone is spying on us anyway" substantially weakening the case against Huawei, say.
Also as far as discussion here is concerned, most people here are from Western countries, so at the end of the day discussions will mostly be about our own behaviours.
And we already know China has been backdooring other equipment: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... So yes, this is a small victory in a massive war.
Honest question. Can someone explain why the comment below was flagged? I can see why some might disagree but I fail to see any problematic about any of the statements made. I think of HN as one of the few places were people can have open discussions where everyone is free to state their opinion and have it up for debate/rebuttal. "I disagree. Reports about China from many western media tend to exaggerate things abou…
If your opinion is not following the sentiment of the majority then you can get down votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes USA still manages to do the right thing it seems.
"You can rely on the USA to do the right thing; once it had exhausted all the other options" - Churchill (I think)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like the UK is a paragon of freedom of expression.
This reminds me of a joke: During Soviet times, a Russian man was arguing with a British man over whether their respective countries had freedom of speech. The British man said "I can go to the Houses of Parliament and call Margaret Thatcher an idiot". To which the Soviet man said "It's the same for us. I can go to Red Square and call Margaret Thatcher an idiot".