https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/china-app-ueberwachung-t...
Regarding email address, it's under "contact information" same as "home address". What's the problem?
Regarding social media, it says "optional", so...?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48118558
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/05/01/u-s-customs-ca...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searc...
https://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/How-do-you-block-sideloa...
Basically you create an enterprise profile for your phone and block sideloading of apps as a policy ("Disallow_Install_Unknown_Sources). Same with iOS.
A big part of the 50-cent party's job [1] is to promote negative western news stories.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights...
It's just pathetic to see this kind of whataboutism keeps coming up on this website. The US and China have very different political systems, the former is democratic republic, the later is authoritarian. It is not a close comparison.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
It’s also been hypothesized that the “border” could be expanded to include many more. International airports are arguably ports of entry. Native American territories and embassies + consulates are considered foreign soil.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: a user emailed to point out that this article is itself one of the original sources, because vice.com aka Motherboard was one of the investigating parties. That was my mistake! Sorry.
In reality, comparables sometimes are and sometimes aren't relevant. You have to make that argument case by case for it to have any meaning. Invoking a generic word as if it magically decides the matter is just the sort of thing the HN guidelines ask commenters not to do.
To pick an example from another, hopefully distant enough, flamewar topic: if someone complains that dynamic programming languages have runtime errors and someone replies, "what about null pointer exceptions in $static-lang?", it's reasonable to argue about whether and how that is comparable. What's not reasonable is to exclaim "Whataboutism! The topic is errors in dynamic languages. Stop trying to change the subject." That amounts to "you can't say that because I spoke first", and that's not how conversation works. The question of what's relevant is an intimate part of the discussion itself. It's not something that whoever-spoke-first gets to control. Indeed, if anyone did control that, they would have the power to control the entire conversation. Past explanations for anybody who wants more:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862258
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19471386
Huawei is likely one of the companies that contributed to this very Xinjiang endeavour [0].
Even if it's not directly related, by buying a Huawei phone, you are voting with your money to support a company that's been hurting innovation with IP theft through the years [1].
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/25/huawei-ac...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-litte...
> Huawei said they would "provide industry-leading products and services... to build a safer and smarter society with the public security department of the autonomous region." Three months later, the company launched the Huawei Urumqi DevCloud to "promote the development of the software information industry in the district and all of Urumqi."
If that's not enough, please read this another article also from forbes [0].
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/25/huawei-xi...
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2189605/us...
It takes a particular kind of cruelty to see the world from the eye of effectiveness only, and that thinking propagates through society.
No surprise that Chinese have been found to be the least honest and least trustworthy society in many experiments and studies, e.g.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/06/19/scie...
https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/1879850/chinese-most-...
We are embedded in society, always. One should be careful thinking only about effectiveness and efficiency, and not individual dignity. There's a feedback.
May be good to make the distinction between the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region† in the very north-west of China and the rest of China itself. The surveillance, monitoring, detention, "education", and de-radicalisation that are happening in Xinxiang are not to my knowledge representative of the rest of China. It is, of course, very troublesome that this illiberal dragnet exists anywhere in China. We would do well to remember that the crackdown (on the face of it) is a heavy-handed response to multiple Uyghur Muslim terrorist attacks‡ over decades that have claimed the lives of many and injured many more.
While an argument could be made that if any part of China is a police state then all of it is the same could have been said of, for instance, the United Kingdom at the height of the Troubles. At the time the UK deployed watch towers, mass stop and search checkpoints, and harsh anti-terrorism laws that encroached on everyone's freedoms. This was in Northern Ireland but the rest of the UK was relatively unaffected. And nobody at the time that I'm aware of called the UK a police state. The measures were seen as a clumsy response to localised terrorism.
What I'm saying is: yes we know that China is authoritarian, yes we know that it is totalitarian (bar Hong Kong and even that is crumbling…), yes we know China employs a (some would say draconian) social credit scoring system – but it might even still be a stretch to label China in its entirety as a police state when the measures being discussed (installing surveillance apps on phones at security crossings) are localised to one region of ~25 million people out of a country of ~1.4 billion. I'd like to think that if the whole of China was treated the same way there would be an uprising. For the record the ethnic composition of Xinjiang is: 45.84% Uyghur, 40.48% Han, 6.50% Kazakh, 4.51% Hui, 2.67% Other.
Calling WeChat "a kind of malware", what do you mean by this? I would see a miniscule difference between WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger or whatever and WeChat – none of these corps, be they Tencent or Facebook or whoever are cuddly and friendly, they're all out to extract as much revenue and profit from the eyeballs they engage as humanly possible. If you think WeChat is a kind of malware I expect you think the same about WhatsApp and FB Messenger. If you don't, why don't you? Is WeChat actually required in China? I can't find any article to corroborate this claim. Or are you just saying that it's extremely inconvenient to get by without it. One could say the same about Google or Facebook services in the West.
Here’s what the form actually says;
> Select from the list below each social media platform you have used within the last five years. In the space next to the platform’s name, enter the username or handle you have used on that platform. Please do not provide your passwords. If you have used more than one platform or more than one username or handle on a single platform, click the ‘Add Another’ button to list each one separately. If you have not used any of the listed social media platforms in the last five years, select ‘None.’”
Here’s a screenshot of the form:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.flyertalk.com-vbulletin/569...
It's effectively totalitarian, special economic zones aside. We've seen what happens if they try to stir the pot politically. Their relative "freedom" is exercised with a guillotine permanently above their heads and no legal rights.
Everyone is surveilled across every arena of life.
And if you really think people only disappear in Xinjiang, look at the history (and continuing present) of human rights or democracy activists. [0]
[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/30/human-rights-activism-po...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: we had to ask you this before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19989263). We ban accounts that repeatedly violate the site guidelines, so please don't do this.
We'll see your Huawei and raise you AT&T
"The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” It is a collaboration that dates back decades [...] The NSA exploits these relationships [..] commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies."
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hub...
WeChat doesn't have end-to-end encryption, while other apps have them. So the difference is not minuscule. Any communication on Wechat is interceptible by Chinese govt agencies. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/wechat-chinese...
Wechat doesn't fit the definition of a "malware", but it is a weapon that Chinese govt uses to monitor it's citizens.
<<--Is WeChat actually required in China? I can't find any article to corroborate this claim. Or are you just saying that it's extremely inconvenient to get by without it. One could say the same about Google or Facebook services in the West.-->>
Read this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/opinion/learning-to-survi...
