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

A Walk in Hong Kong

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 398 posts

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#271

Post by DanBC »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #221
DanBC wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was on the street. MGM tried to say, as you are here, that because she was on the street she had no expectation of privacy. English courts disagreed. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html > In the UK there is no expectation of privacy in public places and anyone can film or take pictures in public. I've just linked you to a case where that was shown to be untrue. > The ICO is about data protection. Da…

There is no expectation of privacy in public places. You are trying to prove me wrong by subtly shifting the argument. > You're claiming that because there's no expectation of privacy on the street someone can just run CCTV and do what they like with those images. I never claimed that. But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.

I am not subtlely shifting the argument.

I'm giving you at least one clear example where someone in public had an expectation of privacy and that was upheld by English courts.

I've also showed that English data protection laws provide an expectation of privacy and restrict what type of filming and photography people do in public places.

> But I will say that there is no legal restriction on filming a public space in England.

For fuck's sake, there are at least 3 and probably more.

1) Naomi Campbell case above

2) Data protection forbids certain kinds of filming in public

3) "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act" -- try standing on a public street filming a location that has these signs up and see how far you get.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#272

Post by idlewords »

tombh wrote: post #229
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a pretext. It’s hard to understand why China would be motivated oppress the almost entirely Chinese population of Hong Kong because the British were jerks a hundred years ago.

I sometimes like to have a little thought experiment like this: I'm British, so what if, during the 1800s, China had, through unprovoked war, forced the handing over of the port city of Liverpool because we didn't let them sell us heroin? Or if you're American, think of San Francisco being a sovereign state of the CCP. Of course you can never justify oppression, but I think such a thought experiment can give some ver…

The Beatles would have sounded very different.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#273

Post by keiferski »

tombh wrote: post #270
keiferski wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but at best, it's simply an explanation of the realpolitik motives of China. Yes, Hong Kong was ultimately created through some nefarious tactics by the British. But that was 150 years ago. The people living in Hong Kong now are overwhelming ethnic Chinese (92%), have their own culture, and while not perfect, are far more democratic and freedom-loving than the CCP is. If…

I know it may look like I'm taking China's side, but I'm not. In fact it's the automatic dismissal of all possible attempts to understand the Chinese perspective that I'm fighting against. How does simply asserting one side to be the antagonist and leaving it at that, help the situation? If things are black and white then we miss the fact that HK's legitimacy is of a different kind to Taiwan's. Which in turn reinforc…

I simply don't see how someone could simultaneously support self-determination and yet determine "legitimacy" via some nation-state government elites and not by the actual people living there. If you believe in democratic values, it's irrelevant if Hong Kong is "legitimate" in the eyes of the CCP. This type of self-determining situation can be tricky in other circumstances (see: U.S. Civil War or Catalonia for some examples) but the simple fact is that China is an authoritarian, totalitarian, anti-democratic state, while Hong Kong is not.

> Why exactly aren't the UK rushing to HK's aid?

For numerous reasons, none of which have to do with a nuanced view of history: Brexit, internal domestic politics, fear of upsetting China, fear of impacting the British economy, etc. Britain in particular and the West in general have zero qualms about intervening in other countries' affairs when it suits them.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#274

Post by _qng9 »

jnbiche wrote: post #219
oinkl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America's Fundamental Misunderstanding of China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojr-tqaQQOQ

Boy, all kinds of new accounts in this thread, with just one or two comments about the Hong Kong situation.

I've long been a lurker on HN but these protests have compelled me to create an account to chime in on the situation.

As someone who's bilingual, travelled to both China and Hong Kong, and worked and interacted with Chinese people, the sheer volume and intensity of Sinophobic comments on western social media (Twitter, Reddit) following the wake of these protests painting China and the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) as an evil communist government which brainwashes and oppresses its citizens, reflects to me deep ignorance and opened my eyes to how environment and media shapes your worldview.

I'm not saying the CCP is without flaw; China has done things I strongly disagree with. But making broad sweeping statements about how China bad based on what you know from western media, without having stepped foot into either China or Hong Kong, without making an effort to understand a foreign culture, is an even greater crime. To me, it's no different from liberals claiming conservatives are all brainwashed by Fox News.

Regarding the Hong Kong protests, most people don't have time for deep political analyses. You read headlines, read stories, read social media, form an impression of whats going on, and then you pass judgement based on your worldview. Western media has largely framed these protests as a fight for democracy against China and oppression. Who's the audience? The English speaking world, which is largely democratic.

However, if you can understand Chinese/Cantonese, I would suggest looking at Hong Kong and Chinese media and social media. It's also prone to biased reporting, but there are moderate and sensible comments as well, and you get a deeper understanding of both sides of the conflict. In my opinion, the situation is alot more nuanced and complicated than what's portrayed in mainstream media.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#276

Post by tombh »

sherjilozair wrote: post #249
tombh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes like to have a little thought experiment like this: I'm British, so what if, during the 1800s, China had, through unprovoked war, forced the handing over of the port city of Liverpool because we didn't let them sell us heroin? Or if you're American, think of San Francisco being a sovereign state of the CCP. Of course you can never justify oppression, but I think such a thought experiment can give some ver…

What is this thought experiment meant to say? If the people of Liverpool or San Francisco want freedom and make their own country, many in the west would support such a thing. After Trump got elected, the separationism meme was spread in California half-seriously. The reason this thought experiment doesn't really work is that it disregards a crucial piece of information that the CCP is an authoritarian regime, while…

[flagged]

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#277

Post by outside1234 »

roca wrote: post #157
surfmike wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have?

Yeah OK, it's declining, but they aren't out of it yet. https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/production-and-exports/expo...

And wait until islands (and Florida) start sinking under the sea and there is this big Norwegian oil fund there sitting like a target...

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#278

Post by concert-gilled »

my_username_is_ wrote: post #225
concert-gilled wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specific demands which amount to independence rather than integration.

No, there is an important distinction between independence and autonomy. A majority of the protesters support "one country, two system", they just want the two systems to be preserved.

They want autonomy which is functionally equivalent to independence.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#279

Post by outside1234 »

skrebbel wrote: post #211
theklub wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway just happens to have a ton of oil money and a tiny population, whenever they get mentioned as an example for the rest of the world I can't help but laugh.

You're responding to the words "Norway or Sweden". Sweden doesn't have a ton of oil money.

And Sweden is nowhere near as well off either.

Re: A Walk in Hong Kong

#280

Post by alisonatwork »

tombh wrote: post #227
SECProto wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is a disingenuous take on their comment. They said it is culturally and linguistically distinct from the mainland ruling class. I think it's pretty easy to see how that arose from the historical separation. They specifically mention how it came from years of British rule, and skipping the cultural revolution. They didn't even mention Guangdong.

I think you've misunderstood both them and the geography of South China. They're clearly referring to the Cantonese speaking region, which is called Guangdong (which the British never owned), of which HK is a very small part (perhaps 1/30th of the size). It sounds like you think they were just talking about HK or that the British owned GUangdong. And even more confusingly attributing HK's linguistic distinctiveness t…

To add to the confusion, there are plenty of people whose families have lived in Guangdong for generations that are not ethnically Cantonese at all.

Linguistically, Southern China has many different groups. In Guangdong alone there are plenty of Hakka and Teochew speakers, both of which are languages quite different to Cantonese. Even within the Cantonese topolect there are a significant number of different groups, for example Taishanese, whose speech is not mutually intelligible with Guangzhou Cantonese. Add Guangxi and Hainan and there are even more different languages and ethnic groups.

I think what the original poster was trying to point out is that due to British rule, Hong Kong did not take part in the advancements (and catastrophes) that happened on the mainland over the past century. That is undeniable fact. The implication was that this was a good thing, but i disagree.

Nowadays in the mainland people who grew up in villages hundreds or thousands of miles apart can communicate using their second language - the lingua franca of Mandarin... meanwhile many Hongkongers are stuck only knowing the language of their local town. Perhaps they preserved their local language better than people in Jiangmen (Taishanese) or Huizhou (Hakka) or Chaozhou and Shantou (Teochew), but a downside is they also can't really talk to people from those cities the way the younger generations of mainlanders can.

Post reply on HN