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

Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 305 posts

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#281

Post by bctnry »

khc wrote: post #86

As an overseas Chinese (born and grew up in Hong Kong but have relatives in China) I am sadden by this and HN comments. Any claim that Google would have helped China censor Chinese citizens ignores the fact that Chinese search engines are already censored. Because laws in this area are often vague, I can see that dragonfly would apply varying levels of censorships and as a side effect, allow people to access some inf…

For people who against this, please take a look at the Death of Zexi Wei[1].

And just for context, Baidu is, currently, the only big player, and in most of the time considered to be the only player in the search engine market of Mainland China.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#282

Post by mikejb »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #112
khc wrote: post #86

As an overseas Chinese (born and grew up in Hong Kong but have relatives in China) I am sadden by this and HN comments. Any claim that Google would have helped China censor Chinese citizens ignores the fact that Chinese search engines are already censored. Because laws in this area are often vague, I can see that dragonfly would apply varying levels of censorships and as a side effect, allow people to access some inf…

If Google had more business in China, the CCP could blackmail them into censoring their results in other countries as well. Just look at how the CCP bullied international airlines about Taiwan, the laws being awfully vague hasn't helped one bit. Letting the CCP export its censorship back into the West in the hopes that Google will improve life in China is a hell of a gamble.

> If Google had more business in China, the CCP could blackmail them into censoring their results in other countries as well.

It's easily forgotten that the nation currently lead by Donald Trump already has this power of international censorship. Doesn't even need hypothetical scenarios to be scary.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#283

Post by Kaiyou »

vatueil wrote: post #209
Kaiyou wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are moving our entire business to Europe, because we legally cannot keep the NSA out of your data otherwise." would be a start.

That would just move the ball into GCHQ or DGSE's court.

I said it would be a start, not a final solution.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#284

Post by gdy »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #254
gdy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The CCP derives its authority from economic growth" Why is it a bad thing?

That's not a bad thing, but it means that you can't help the economy without helping the party. It's either both or neither.

But if a party policies help economy grow, why is it bad to help party?

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#285

Post by ionised »

patejam wrote: post #118
ezoe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both US and EU exercise censorship in the name of: + copyrights + trademarks + patents(really bogus patents) + religion(these days, US outright ban any casual religious reference because it offend some believers, resulting modifying some manga/anime/game) + national security + ex-political party symbol(swastika, but they can't tell the difference between nazi symbol and Buddism symbol which is widely used in Japanese…

So a couple things (From the US perspective): 1. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are a pretty weak argument for "censorship" IMO. But I guess I see where you're coming from. There are also many "fair-use" exceptions for these that make it less "censorship" and more "preventing profit on other people's ideas". 2. "US outright ban any casual religious reference because it offend some believers, resulting modifying s…

Some US states have obscenity laws as well, which is kind of ridiculous in this age.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#286

Post by cbnotfromthere »

peteretep wrote: post #88
noelsusman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of standing on principle against censorship that doesn't affect them.

> convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of If the last few years have shown anything, it's that you can get EU and US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup.

US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup

No need to bring up all those who voted for Bernie.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#287

Post by bduerst »

srcmap wrote: post #263
wurst_case wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes. This is concerning but not surprising. After the Snowden leaks, a buddy of mine kept telling me that it was the tip of tmthe iceberg, that the private sector was even more dangerous than prism. I guess this is what he was talking about.

Google's sensorvault keeps track of hundreds of millions phone's location data for the past TEN YEARS and share those data with police. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/googles-sensorvault-ca...

Which is only shared when a court-ordered subpoenaed is presented for the individual's data by the U.S. Government. If Google didn't comply then we would be complaining how they think they are above the law.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#288

Post by bduerst »

jjeaff wrote: post #277
bduerst wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to be forgotten is a bigger censorship blow against democracy than outright banning individual websites. Politicans can selectively remove results about themselves so that constituents can never find them in search, while giving the appearance that nothing is wrong because other articles show in results.

Right to be forgotten does not apply to public figures. https://www.alphr.com/computing/1000120/public-figures-cant-...

Wasn't aware the loophole was closed. That's awesome.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#289

Post by bduerst »

T-A wrote: post #213
bduerst wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does "submit to chinese censorship" mean in this case? China is already blocking these censored websites- linking them in search results isn't going to magically allow the website to load in the browser. Even in the example you linked, Yahoo! said "it must respect the laws of governments in jurisdictions where it is operating." How is complying with this different than complying with a U.S. Government su…

> China is already blocking these censored websites- linking them in search results isn't going to magically allow the website to load in the browser. Unless the user clicks the little down arrow next to the URL, which opens the popup menu with "Cached". And even if that were also censored, the titles, URLs and the first couple of lines of text returned by Google would speak volumes about what's going on. Imagine goo…

How many users browse the internet through Google's cache? Splitting hairs over cache vs. linking the dead website is ignoring the point.

Re: Google's Project Dragonfly 'Terminated' in China

#290

Post by patejam »

ezoe wrote: post #266
patejam wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a couple things (From the US perspective): 1. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are a pretty weak argument for "censorship" IMO. But I guess I see where you're coming from. There are also many "fair-use" exceptions for these that make it less "censorship" and more "preventing profit on other people's ideas". 2. "US outright ban any casual religious reference because it offend some believers, resulting modifying s…

> Can you give an example? This seems to go directly against first amendment rights. Like I said, many manga/anime/games were modified to remove any casual use of religious symbol when released in US. These days, major products don't contain these beforehand if it's famous enough to expect US release.

You specifically said that the "US outright ban[s]" it, which is incorrect. Private companies can change whatever they want to sell more of their product. That's not censorship, that's just knowing your target audience.
Post reply on HN