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

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#31

Post by Eye_of_Mordor »

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.

"NSA Spying Did Not Result In a SINGLE Foiled Terrorist Plot"

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-re...

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#32

Post by pessimizer »

comex wrote: post #29
r0h1n wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Between people who fight for expensive and inconvenient procedures in the name of a particular existential threat, but when pressed admit that the methods are not at all effective for that purpose - an enormous difference between those people and people who have a different motive than they claim to have? A minuscule difference.

If you support A to do B, but admit that A doesn't do B, then I assume that you support A to do X. If doing A causes you to make money, I'm gonna assume X is to make money.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#33

Post by comex »

pessimizer wrote: post #32
comex wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Between people who fight for expensive and inconvenient procedures in the name of a particular existential threat, but when pressed admit that the methods are not at all effective for that purpose - an enormous difference between those people and people who have a different motive than they claim to have? A minuscule difference. If you support A to do B, but admit that A doesn't do B, then I assume that you support A…

The main difference is what they believe they're doing. I seriously doubt that most or many people at the NSA think they're in the line of "suppression of dissent".

Even though people doing the wrong things for the right reasons can cause a great deal of harm and should be stopped, it's still less of a threat than people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. For example, I doubt anyone from the NSA would show someone footage of their girlfriend "walking into a hotel with other men" as an attempt to ruin their lives.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#34

Post by crdoconnor »

comex wrote: post #33
pessimizer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between people who fight for expensive and inconvenient procedures in the name of a particular existential threat, but when pressed admit that the methods are not at all effective for that purpose - an enormous difference between those people and people who have a different motive than they claim to have? A minuscule difference. If you support A to do B, but admit that A doesn't do B, then I assume that you support A…

The main difference is what they believe they're doing. I seriously doubt that most or many people at the NSA think they're in the line of "suppression of dissent". Even though people doing the wrong things for the right reasons can cause a great deal of harm and should be stopped, it's still less of a threat than people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. For example, I doubt anyone from the NSA would show…

>The main difference is what they believe they're doing. I seriously doubt that most or many people at the NSA think they're in the line of "suppression of dissent".

What's with all the whistleblowing then? Snowden wasn't the only one. He was just the one who released the information directly to the public (at enormous personal risk).

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#35

Post by rayiner »

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…

Both you and the article miss a basic point, which is that the preservation of government, for its own sake, is in the interest of both the people who compose the government, and also of the people. This is particularly true in democratic countries, where the government is the vehicle for the popular will. The fall of a democratic government almost always leads to tyranny, because very few revolutionaries go to the trouble of overthrowing a government to not take advantage of the opportunity to impose their own point of view. In authoritarian regimes like China, there is less of an overlap between the interests of the people and the interests of the government. Though, there is still a tremendous overlap. The only thing worse than a bad government is no government.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#36

Post by crdoconnor »

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.

Hardly. It was literally the only place without an extradition treaty where he could flee to.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#37

Post by rayiner »

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 is a big difference between one particular policy or program not being useful to fight terrorism, and the whole intelligence apparatus not being useful. To analogize to a different domain: lots of people would say programs like No Child Left Behind are not useful, or even harmful. That doesn't mean that they also think that the only purpose of the Department of Education is to miseducate people.

Even people who disagree with particular intelligence programs are likely to support the intelligence apparatus as a whole.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#38

Post by stygianguest »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #26
WoodenChair wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may seem hard to believe, but countries like Germany did operate by the assumption that the Americans at least have good intentions. Everybody knows that the US can and will push their agenda when they think it is important, but often nobody sees real harm in cooperating either.

That is also why the spying on Merkel is extremely harmful to American-German relations. It changes the view of the public at large on the US.

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#39

Post by scarmig »

comex wrote: post #33
pessimizer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between people who fight for expensive and inconvenient procedures in the name of a particular existential threat, but when pressed admit that the methods are not at all effective for that purpose - an enormous difference between those people and people who have a different motive than they claim to have? A minuscule difference. If you support A to do B, but admit that A doesn't do B, then I assume that you support A…

The main difference is what they believe they're doing. I seriously doubt that most or many people at the NSA think they're in the line of "suppression of dissent". Even though people doing the wrong things for the right reasons can cause a great deal of harm and should be stopped, it's still less of a threat than people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. For example, I doubt anyone from the NSA would show…

Why would you doubt that?

It's not like the US intelligence services haven't done this before. See how they treated MLK before (e.g. spying on him, accusing him of being in league with communists, leaking details of his personal life to Strom Thurmond).

Re: The Transparent Chinese

#40

Post by lmg643 »

rayiner wrote: post #35
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…

Both you and the article miss a basic point, which is that the preservation of government, for its own sake, is in the interest of both the people who compose the government, and also of the people. This is particularly true in democratic countries, where the government is the vehicle for the popular will. The fall of a democratic government almost always leads to tyranny, because very few revolutionaries go to the t…

There's a lot of truth in what you write - but ... there is a legitimate concern that even in a "democratic society" the "security" apparatus can be used to maintain the party in power.

think about watergate - it was a spying scandal, back when you had to physically collect the information. knowing what the opposition is thinking or doing is valuable information. discrediting critics and supporters of your opponent is political blocking and tackling 101. any government tools available for this purpose protect the incumbent.

bill clinton recently said one of the main scandals is that snowden was able to access top secret clearance so easily, and get access to so much sensitive information. "a world with no security, and no privacy." good line. hard to believe this won't bleed over to the election process.

Post reply on HN