Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Interesting thing about Japan, is the complete acceptance of people wearing surgical masks in public (it's considered to be polite if you are ill). Makes it a lot harder to identify people from video surveillance.



In Turkey a lot of women wear burkas or some variation (depending on the specific religion sub-division). In Greece I've seen people (I might have done it myself) stopping with a motorcycle in the ATM and withdrawing money wearing a helmet and leaving, 90 seconds in total. This can't be done in some ATMs which require you to look at the camera before entering the ATM room[1]. However, that's like 5% of the available ATMs.

[1] In Greece this is illegal. The fact that Banks for years get away with taking pictures without any kind of explicit agreement adds to the narrative that Greece is (officially now) a protectorate and banks are WAY above state where it matters.


*Hey this is a turkish guy and you just wrote something wrong there

In Turkey not a lot of women wear burkas. Burkas and the variation that you would like to point are different things. If you wear burkas, it will be really hard for video surveillance. Because only your eyes and wrinkles around them are visible. The other variation "Head Scarf" which lets your face totally visible is ok for identifying people.

From cultural perspective, a lot of women in Turkey wear "head scarf". It is a symbol that you are a part of a religion and you share almost the same vision with the religion that you are a member of. But burkas is different. It means you feel more radicalized in terms of religion. A social example would be shaking hanks with women. If you are a man in Turkey and have a intend to shake a woman's hands, you can do it with a woman wearing "headscarf" but not burkas. So, basically No. They don't wear burkas at all may be 4% percent at most.

Below is my personal opinion.

I don't really understand why people are bullshitting my country. You never lived there. What you just wrote is a black propaganda. What is the relation between wearing burkas in Turkey and ATM heist? You are not in that position to conclude that opinion. It is just a subliminal message.

A recent survey in Turkey showed that Atheism and other close variants are on the rise at its highest rate ever. I hope that one day people in Turkey will break their chains and get rid of that human-made arabic culture.


True that in Turkey very little amount of women wears clothing that veils the face, but you are over reacting. Previous commenter just count two potential ways of avoiding ATM surveillance.


They're probably Saudi or Gulf Arab tourists and not Turkish. At least, that was my experience when I have been to Turkey the last time and I'm from the region, I have an easy job identifying people's background from their accent, form and attire than outsiders.


There are some small religious groups that uses a face veiling clothing called "çarşaf". This was also historically used in Ottoman era. this setimes covers below nose, sometimes shows the face. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ar%C5%9Faf Usage seems like .01 to 2 percent of women.


I checked the pics on Google Images, they're virtually taken recently with nothing dating back to the Ottoman period to validate this claim. All look like black Arabian abayas and burkas and it's difficult to imagine that çarşafs and abayas are identical like that.

Fun fact, "çarşaf" or more accurately "şarşaf" in Egyptian Arabic means table clothes or bed clothes. It's amazing words and consequently languages evolve and take on meanings over time.


Çarşaf has the meaning of table cloth in current Turkish as well.


I was gonna post the same pedantry as m00dy---there's a difference between a Burka and a head scarf. I guess it's just a bit of a trigger topic.


There's no need to immediately jump to conclusions about "black propaganda". The head scarf/burka definition was probably an honest mistake. And the relation to robbery is a fairly logical followup to ghshephard's comment about Japan's masks helping robbery. The point is that Japan isn't the only country where people regularly wear things on their face.


If you are unhappy with Turkey getting a bad rep internationally then maybe take it up with Erodgan. He is not doing your country any favors with all the sectarian/dictatorial/communal BS


*Hey this is a Muslim guy and you just wrote something wrong there

You realize you just did the exact same thing between wearing Burkas in Turkey and Islam / Religion?

You are not in that position to conclude that opinion. Head scarves & Burka's go beyond 'identity' as you just trivialized them to.

You used your comment to get across your 'subliminal message' just as much as the commenter you accused of doing did.


"human-made arabic culture"

Just a nitpick, but every culture is man-made.


A headscarf obscures the face, not unlike a surgical mask. What exactly are you correcting the record on?



I don't think you know what a headscarf is.

Pop quiz: can you identify this person? http://i.imgur.com/WBqCCv1.jpg


Wow, the coloration doesn't help. I would have given myself about 40% odds of successfully identifying Audrey Hepburn; I can't do it at all when she's washed purple.


Google image search indicates it's someone named "Audrey Hepburn".


> I hope that one day people in Turkey will break their chains and get rid of that human-made arabic culture.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Turkish people manage to get rid of the Arabian deity (Mohammad's god) they embraced a millennia ago, it would be an uphill battle for them against history because whether you like it or not, the most bright spots in history for Turkish people were during the reign of Seljuks and Ottomans, neither would have happened hadn't for the Islamic doctrine and faith.

You could argue of course that Turkey founded by Ataturk was still something impressive and to look up to but it still pales in comparison with what had been achieved during these two eras at least from an imperialistic and militaristic points of view.

That's why I think it wouldn't be easy for Turkey to break free from the negative Arabian influence and Sahara culture even if they renounce Islam altogether when compared to other countries in the region with more diverse and rich history spanning various civilizations and glorious times, and therefore they should focus more on how to reconcile with their past and history and not just get in state of denial about it.


What you said would also apply to, say, the British Empire, which was very Christian for its entire existence.

Most people don't really care about the details of history that much - just whatever narrative they can spin that satisfies today's needs.


Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

The British Empire was vast and I can't come up with a definite answer for all the areas that were colonized by them but in my country "Egypt", they didn't do that. They however facilitated the work of western missionaries but it didn't achieve much with the Muslim locals and probably contributed to the outrage of Coptic clergy as these missionaries were snatching people from their congregation. Other than that, the British didn't really care about religion and their social order was constructed on race/class first basis and anything else second while for the Ottomans it was all about religion first and anything else second.


Did the British force people to convert to Christianity for them to enjoy the benefits of being subjects of the monarchy?

How far back in history do you want to go? Plenty of battles within Christianity in British history. E.g. King Henry VIII didn't accept the authority of the pope and led the Church of England away from the Roman Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Separation_f...

A few generations later, things got pretty dicey for the remaining Catholics:

   England’s Elizabethan Catholics were public
   enemy number one. Their Masses were banned
   and their priests were executed.
http://www.historyextra.com/article/elizabeth-i/elizabeth-i%...


Did the British persecute Catholics when they were in an imperialist/expansionist mode around the world?

To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. The British Empire in its quests wasn't concerned about anti-Catholicism and disdain for the authority of the Pope, it was primarily driven by political/financial gains. On the other hand, for the Ottoman Turks it was all about Jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims in newly conquered territories. The persecution and discrimination against non-Muslims for the subjects of their realm was one of the founding principles of taheir rule and public policy.


As a Canadian, yes they did. Look at our history and how the British tried to assimilate the Canadiens.

That's not to mention that forcing Christianity on conquered subjects was one of the main goals of the British Empire.


When did the Ottoman Turks become Muslim?


From the Saljuk period. Is this a history quiz :)?


Oh, I just couldn't recall when it happened, but it seemed obviously important when comparing to Christianity and the British Empire.


I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis. Or that of others here.

My point is that it's irrelevant in terms of how history affects peoples' actions. You're engaging a detailed study of historical reality, but the masses don't do that. They have a narrative spun for them - generally no more than two or three sentences of complexity, max - and that's what matters.


Thanks for correcting the poster. The US traditionally was very isolationist. After world war one we became more involved in international affairs, and dominant after ww2. We're in an odd time. in the mid 20th century lots and lots of americans had been around the world, because of the wars. But those generations have almost died off. Very few americans have first hand experience with other cultures. I think the general population avoids thinking about other cultures.

Please don't take it personally. It's ignorance. Perceptions are built around these weird media effects from the news. Treat us like puppies or children. it's not malice, we just don't know any better.


Speak for yourself.

The Turkish man you replied to wanted to correct an inaccurate stereotype about Turkish culture. Your comment perpetuates the stereotype that Americans are uneducated on global affairs. This may be true for some, but saying that all Americans should be treated like "puppies" because they "don't know any better" is a huge insult.


As an American myself, I would consider it fair to say that Americans are relatively uneducated on global affairs. Do you have some data suggesting otherwise?

Also, I think you've confused a general with a universal. I don't think he was saying that "all Americans" don't know better, just that when confronted with dumb statements it's better to presume ignorance than malice.

As an example, National Geographic did a survey in 2002, and young Americans came in second to last:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_...

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."

On the one hand, I find this a bit appalling. On the other, I can't totally blame people; America is big enough and far enough from everything else that relatively few Americans ever leave the country, and those who do mostly stay on the continent. So I don't see a "assume ignorance, not malice" posture as an insult; it's mostly what I do myself.


Although he may have simple meant "presume ignorance, not malice," the wording used was very derogatory.

I do not doubt that Americans on average are less educated on international affairs than other Western countries. But arguing that a factually incorrect comment about Turkish headwear on HN (by a user of unknown nationality) is a result of broader "American ignorance" is meaningless.

Furthermore, I believe m00dy's response was accurate and fair. If he viewed every incorrect comment about Turkish culture as written by an American "puppy," I doubt he would have commented, and no one would have learned anything.


> Although he may have simple meant "presume ignorance, not malice," the wording used was very derogatory.

Indeed it was. after a few hours i realize i came off as a jerk. My apologies to you and anyone else i may have offended.


No problem; I think the issue was just wording.


>About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map.

This seems particularly bizarre, because even if someone hasn't learned world geography, surely they've seen a map of the US in various contexts, and can recognise its shape?


That would be fun to research, but my guess: if you showed them the shape of various countries, more people could pick out the right shape. But that shape cuts off Canada and Mexico in ways that are essentially arbitrary, so if they're keying on those edges, or on the grid-of-states shapes, they could still struggle with a satellite photo.

My guess is that this number would be significantly better today because people interact a lot more with world maps when they accidentally zoom out on, e.g., Google Maps pages.


>The US traditionally was very isolationist. After world war one we became more involved in international affairs, and dominant after ww2.

Except not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...


The US traditionally has a big chunk of the electorate that's very isolationist minded. And with that come quite a few politicians pandering to that----at least rhethorically.


For the record: I'm not American :-)


Wait, it's against the law for me to photograph someone entering my property?


The act of taking the photograph is probably not illegal.

But something to the tune of "All user biometrics shall only be stored with the consent of the subject." pretty much means it is illegal to do so, unless you have some sort of sign.

This type of law is usually under the guise of protection of personal information, or some other flag. Though the laws vary in many countries. For the sake of argument, I'm simply saying it's not illegal to photograph someone entering your property in order to point out how "secondary" or "related" laws apply without ever explicitly being defined so.


European data protection rules apply to CCTV systems; they're generally legal with signs and appropriate policy.

(Compare US law on taping phone conversations)


Without his consent? Absolutely. In Greece the police will have you remove any camera that faces the street (even a small chunk of it) if you're not a bank of course.

Now when we're talking about private property, written consent about what you do with that data is obligatory.

Indeed these banks receive tons of lawsuits every year, but if there's something more rotten in Greece than the economy is the justice estate...


I had a look, and apparently there is quite a bit of controversy regarding Islamic headscarfs in Turkey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turke...

And then I was confused what constitutes a headscarf, so I found this:

www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241


The reason often varies depending on the Asian country and with varying level of social acceptance. It is not limited to illness (contraction or spreading).

For example, in Taiwan, females will wear the mask to block the sun in an attempt to prevent freckles.

They are also often used to combat pollution. Many choose to only wear while riding scooters, while others any time outdoors.

In some countries masks have become commonplace such that decorative fashionable masks are sold at convenience stores.


This a south/east/south-east asian thing, not specific to japanese. You will find the same in vietnam, korea, cambodia, thailand, taiwan, ...


Also Hong Kong. I always thought it may be related to population density. Another thing I've noticed in Hong Kong is sanitizing gel dispensers placed pretty much everywhere - corridors in metro stations, hotels, etc. Seems reasonable with the amount of people living there per square meter of space.


I'm not sure it's population density or at least not that alone. There are parts of the West with comparably high densities, especially in large cities, and covering your face is generally frowned upon.

I suspect that the cultural focus on cleanliness has a lot to do with it, but given that it's Hacker News there may be someone with a more exact idea of the origin.


You wear one if you're sick. So that you don't get other people sick basically.

Contrast with my experience in Sydney, where catching the bus during flu season is bloody hazardous. Being coughed and sneezed on gets old quickly, so I totally understand the surgical mask thing; it's a basic courtesy.


Yes. Though I am not sure if it's actually effective, or only a superficial courtesy.


It may even be counter-productive, if it means you no longer feel the need to cover your mouth when coughing.


Isn't surgical mask more effective than covering your mouth when coughing?


Allergies is one major motivator.


Allergies should be a good reason not do that, at least from a public health perspective.


It's most likely due to the country's brush with SARS and avian flu. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21680682


I wonder if this is a consequence of the SARS outbreak ~10 years ago.


No, it predates it, to the 80's at least, to my personal knowledge, and I have no reason think it's not older than that.


You will find it elsewhere in SEA, but the prevalence in Japan is extremely high. I've been in train carriages where 40% of its passengers are wearing them.


It has to do with the fact that you are still expected to show up at work when you have a cold or other similar "minor" illnesses. It's the same in Korea and other Asian countries.


That's not entirely accurate. It's because of H5N1 outbreak 10 years back that people have become a lot more conscious about airborne diseases. It is polite to wear a mask when you are sick so that you don't spread it to other people when you cough or sneeze.


The practice of wearing a surgical mask in asian countries is far more than 10 years old. I saw it in Hong Kong and Shanghai in the 70's.


Not sure, but it definitely blew up after 2003.


Having lived in Japan for around 10 years, in my experience, the vast majority of mask wearers are doing so because of allergies (particularly Sugi). It's pretty rough for a lot of people - particularly in the early spring months. Also why air purifiers are big business here.


I feel like this could be solved with a decent VPN + an occasional webcam.


I bet it had to do with the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong, as is also the case in other nearby Asian cities/countries like Taiwan and Singapore.

I'm from HK and to the best of my memory the practice never existed before the epidemic. During the epidemic, anywhere you went in public, there were at least 8/10 people wearing masks, thanks in part to huge public (TV/print) campaigns by the government and places like schools/clinics/hospitals providing free masks. That is just one of many counter measures that live on to this day. Another one is that all elevators and escalators have stickers or signs stating how many times/day and when it was last disinfected, and elevators tend to have a big clear plastic sheet covering all the buttons.


A great number of the mask users in Japan are allergy sufferers. The Forestry agency in Japan planted mono-culture trees, fast growing cedar. The pollen from these trees waft from the cedar farms in yellow clouds. Having a single predominate plant species putting out so much pollen triggers awful allergies for those people who are sensitive. And triggers normal-bad allergies in people who might not have become allergic without the large exposure to that mono-culture pollen.


Yet, in the US, if you're wearing a mask, the majority will think you're a terrorist.

What a world we live in.


A ski mask, maybe. If you're wearing a surgical mask people will think you're sick.


Hong Kong is the same way -- and I can't blame them. SARS was terrifying.


Interesting that Asians covering their faces is so received so differently from Middle Easternern women covering their faces.


One is for medical reasons and by choice, the other is for religious reasons and "by choice".


Totally different beasts. Muslim women covering their whole body but their eyes is way more difficult to identify for law enforcement since they have only the eyes as one data point to uncover the identity while for Asian folks who cover their mouth - not their face, huge difference -, you'd still get the eyes - provided that they are not covered by sunglasses -, the hair - provided that they are not wearing ridiculous hat -, body shape and probably gait as data points to work on in their search.

All in all, it's still a better situation for the latter than the former when it comes to law enforcement.


Not quite so different. There are huge discussions about the headscarf in Europe, which doesn't cover the whole face like a Burkha.


That's because it isn't the act of covering your face that people find offensive, it's the reason behind it.


Asia is a very big place.

Stalin was as Asian.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: