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

The Transparent Chinese

cn.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#21

Post by infinity0 »

zmh wrote: post #13
vorg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, hope the NYT don't mind. I can't be bothered with proxies and VPN's - whenever I find a free one that works, the party doesn't last long, so I don't bother much anymore.

It's so ironic that Edward Snowden fleed to Hong Kong under China first.

You have no idea what you're talking about, sit down. Hong Kong is nothing like China and the reasons he did it were well-documented and well-reasoned. I don't think you'd do something much less "ironic" if your government was threatening your ass.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#22

Post by WoodenChair »

capisce wrote: post #20
WoodenChair wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

They certainly put up a good show of it, but then they need to be able to justify the spending somehow. Historically though they've sponsored magnitudes of difference more terrorism around the world than they've prevented.

A conspiracy is only as good as its theorists. To this point nobody has presented evidence of the government's "master plan". It looks to me like a lot of misguided policies and arrogance. I don't see anything more sinister than government power trips gone bad. Since we have no evidence otherwise, but plenty of evidence that fighting terrorism is the case, I am forced to conclude that fighting terrorism is their main goal.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#23

Post by mogrim »

WoodenChair wrote: post #17
ilaksh wrote: post #14

>>The Edward J. Snowden affair finally raised a chilling question for the whole world: How much privacy do citizens have to give up for the sake of public security? For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security? The thing that most westerns still don't realize is that the reasons we are giving up privacy actually are the same. Our…

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

Certainly they're fighting terrorism, but the fact they're spying on EU allies suggests that commercial espionage may also play a part.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#24

Post by lsc »

capisce wrote: post #20
WoodenChair wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

They certainly put up a good show of it, but then they need to be able to justify the spending somehow. Historically though they've sponsored magnitudes of difference more terrorism around the world than they've prevented.

>They certainly put up a good show of it, but then they need to be able to justify the spending somehow. Historically though they've sponsored magnitudes of difference more terrorism around the world than they've prevented.

Oh come now. Nobody actually thinks this is a war on terrorism - Terrorism is a tactic. That would be like waging a war on, say, artillery bombardment.

Make no mistake about it. This is a war on some non-state actors, and perhaps on some states. We may be a little bit unclear on who, exactly, those other states and other non-state actors are, but it's certainly not a war on a tactic.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#25

Post by capisce »

WoodenChair wrote: post #22
capisce wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly put up a good show of it, but then they need to be able to justify the spending somehow. Historically though they've sponsored magnitudes of difference more terrorism around the world than they've prevented.

A conspiracy is only as good as its theorists. To this point nobody has presented evidence of the government's "master plan". It looks to me like a lot of misguided policies and arrogance. I don't see anything more sinister than government power trips gone bad. Since we have no evidence otherwise, but plenty of evidence that fighting terrorism is the case, I am forced to conclude that fighting terrorism is their main…

The master plan has always been continued military spending to secure American financial interests (those of the elite and not of the people mind you) domestically and throughout the world even at the cost of local democracy and governance, as exemplified by numerous coup d'etats arranged by the US in countries with democratically elected governments. Security for the American people has never been the highest priority: http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-state-fears-its-own-peo...

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#26

Post by k-mcgrady »

WoodenChair wrote: post #18
zmh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so ironic that Edward Snowden fleed to Hong Kong under China first.

He was afraid to go to (A) any country with an extradition treaty with the United States (B) any US ally. It just goes to show that most of the countries of the world actually do like the United States I guess/or could've in his opinion been coerced to extradite him.

>> "It just goes to show that most of the countries of the world actually do like the United States"

I doubt countries support the US in things like Snowden because they 'like' them. They do it because the US is powerful and the repercussions of not extraditing Snowden aren't worth it to them.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#27

Post by r0h1n »

WoodenChair wrote: post #17
ilaksh wrote: post #14

>>The Edward J. Snowden affair finally raised a chilling question for the whole world: How much privacy do citizens have to give up for the sake of public security? For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security? The thing that most westerns still don't realize is that the reasons we are giving up privacy actually are the same. Our…

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

Two places above this link on the HN front page right now is an Ars article about US senators admitting that there is "no evidence" bulk meta data surveillance is useful.

Edit: adding a link -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6766669

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#28

Post by speeder »

WoodenChair wrote: post #17
ilaksh wrote: post #14

>>The Edward J. Snowden affair finally raised a chilling question for the whole world: How much privacy do citizens have to give up for the sake of public security? For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security? The thing that most westerns still don't realize is that the reasons we are giving up privacy actually are the same. Our…

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

Yep, Angela Merkel, Dilma Rouseff, and Petrobras are terrorists.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#29

Post by comex »

r0h1n wrote: post #27
WoodenChair wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.

Two places above this link on the HN front page right now is an Ars article about US senators admitting that there is "no evidence" bulk meta data surveillance is useful. Edit: adding a link - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6766669

There's an enormous difference between something perhaps not truly being useful for its intended purpose and the purpose being a conspiracy sham.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#30

Post by bmurali »

Frankly I don't mind surveillance and spying when used for preventing terrorism or act of violence the same way as I don't mind when at international airports most of the time I find myself directed to the double security checks. But when its so apparent that the data is being used to target citizens in general and not fight crime it appalling! How do citizens stop a government from exploitation and damage?
Post reply on HN