361–370 of 584 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I think its the only thing Australians can do about their country. Australians will never be afforded an opportunity to overthrow their government, nor will we get the revolutions our demonstrations hope for.
You have obviously never lived through a civil war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sorry that you think like that, but the government is nothing without its people. The moment you start saying there is nothing you can do is the moment you lose. Russian dissidents etc. Chinese middle-class is complacently trading freedom for comfort. American and European middle-class too, for that matter.
I feel it is really unfair to blame chinese individuals like this, can we blame American's for all of their terrible influences they have had around the world too then?
I’d also suggest there’s a difference between acceptance of bad government action, even if you don’t or can’t actively oppose it, and active defense of such action.
I am Chinese living in China. Nationalism is on the rise lately in China, not just for domestic reasons, but also as an reaction to nationalistic moves from "the West" like this one. It's a recurring theme, not just in governmental propaganda, but also in daily conversations, that "the West" would talk about fairness and justice then commit blatant discrimination and double standards. As a founder of a tech company b…
Because short of some effective alternatives, the Chinese government isn't really giving the West much of a choice here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they can, does this also mean the employee has no legal recourse since NSLs must be kept secret? No, because that would be unconstitutional. But the proceedings of objecting to a NSL similarly must be kept secret. There wouldn't be any point to the secret component of a NSL if the recipient could object and hash out the merits of the request in public court records.
So how would anyone ever know that the objection was 1) heard, and 2) upheld?
Most countries do it by subordinating secret agencies to a military division of sorts, wherein martial courts and security access is already structural. Others choose a more 'civilian' approach subordinated to a parallel chain of command within the citizen government/legislation/judiciary — closer to police, interior dpt / homeland security, etc. (in such cases, army intelligence is usually quite distinct from civilian surveillance).
Which approach is favored historically by a country typically depends on pre-existing constitutional models and principles — notably how the army features relatively to the ultimate civilian chain of command, and how the latter is accountable to the (sovereign) public in the event of treason.
None of this applies in authoritarian regimes where the ruling caste or figure(s) usually answer to no principle (no courts for them, only 'advisors' for they sit above the law) and secret service is almost always directly answering to them, as part of the active coercion of the people (fear of the "enemy within", etc).
I assume Gitlab lacks the sophistication to do this split of user data access vs other business operations.
Gitlab runs an open source company, so I don't understand why they are so concerned about China and Russia. Is it for anonymous/confidential customers?
I've never heard of Russian government using their state powers to take advantage of some developer and break into foreign network. That seems like strange and unethical move. I, personally, won't ever use Gitlab after that move.
I am Chinese living in China. Nationalism is on the rise lately in China, not just for domestic reasons, but also as an reaction to nationalistic moves from "the West" like this one. It's a recurring theme, not just in governmental propaganda, but also in daily conversations, that "the West" would talk about fairness and justice then commit blatant discrimination and double standards. As a founder of a tech company b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious as the way I see it it's very often China who is the 'initiator', eg internment of Muslims, stealing of territory in South China sea, debt-trap diplomacy, and so forth. Presuming that you are aware of these occurrences, do you agree with your government's positions and actions, and - if not - what actions, if any, do you take to make it clear your opposition? The Chinese government is, IMO, massively over sen…
>Presuming that you are aware of these occurrences, do you agree with your government's positions and actions, and - if not - what actions, if any, do you take to make it clear your opposition? I'm not from China and I disagree with the action of the China's government you listed above. However I wonder why this kind of opinion (aka the Chinese should be responsible for their government) is not commonly held against…
Why do you think it isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, Germany, which also faces massive problems with Chinese buy-outs and industrial spionage. Well, Germany has gased 6 million people, started two world wars, caused more than 40-50 million deaths, and continues to strong arm EU and have hegemonical aspirations... Perhaps they too should be cut out of international trade or nuked just to be sure? The allies had the right idea, split them into two countries and mak…
The Germans of today have as much to do with the Holocaust as I do with American slavery. Should Germany have been isolated in 1939? Sure. Does that apply 80 years later when things have changed? Of course not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I don't understand @cciresi's position. As far as a I know anti-boycott regulations have primarily (only?) been used to prevent US companies from not doing business with Isreal. China & Russia are geopolitical rivals to the US and I don't see any sort of risk of anti-boycott regulations being applied in restricting business with residents of those countries. I guess you could say there is a risk that could c…
Anti-boycott regulations are highly hypocritical because indeed, they are designed for Israel but pretend to apply to all countries. Thing is, even if it is just country of residence, it is still a discrimination on hiring and could very well be illegal unless there are strong legal reasons. E.g. "we have to do things that are illegal under the laws in country X, so we can't hire people there". I think the main point…
No government would make it illegal for a company to choose not to do business in a non-ally foreign country. Millions of business already don't engage in many foreign countries, by default. Including yours, I bet. Why should they be required to do so?