
We Chat, They Watch - hardmaru
https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
======
hardmaru
Also a thread by Citizen Lab researcher:
[https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1258391908319137797](https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1258391908319137797)

~~~
ASVVVAD
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1258391908319137797.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1258391908319137797.html)

------
krzysiek
Looking at the comments I think that most of commenters missed an important
point. It's not just that the app is tracking users, but the messages sent by
any non-Chinese user help the regime censor the content for Chinese users. In
other words, if you use WeChat, and you send a photo of something that
happened in Hong Kong along with some text that explains it, then you actually
help Chinese authorities to censor this photo in China.

> Upon analysis, files deemed politically sensitive are used to invisibly
> train and build up WeChat’s Chinese political censorship system.

Also I think it's super cool how they did the research.

~~~
yingliu4203
Many Chinese-Americans have no choice when they need to communicate with
family and friend living in China. No outside communication tools allowed in
China.

~~~
fiblye
Outside of China, we're pretty lucky that we can just register for random
sites like HN with nothing more than a username and password and start
talking.

Every Chinese site I've ever used requires phone number or ID verification.
Most of them only allow Chinese-registered phones, meaning it's absolutely
impossible to communicate with Chinese people from the outside world, aside
from a very small number of carefully vetted services like WeChat.

But I fear the rest of the world looked at China and thought, "Wow, we
should've done that a long time ago!" Accounts I registered about a decade ago
now demand I confirm an email and sometimes a phone number. Email accounts
I've had half my life lock me out unless I link it to my phone number and
prove my identity. Some services ask for a fucking ID card scan, which prompts
me to just drop the service. Some things I've used in the past only accept US
phone area codes, which having left the US, means those services are now
completely inaccessible to me.

China says it's for state security. They're at least kind of honest that their
intention is to keep the population in check and watch their every movement.
The rest of the world says it's for personal security. Then another day passes
and another heap of phone numbers, names, SSNs, and addresses leak and another
identity is stolen.

~~~
devtul
We will give our freedoms away in name of preventing toxicity and hate speech.
Won't you feel good you are helping squash bigots by giving your PII away

~~~
kibwen
There's not a single social network that has begun to require phone
verification because of the risk of "toxicity or hate speech". It's all to
fight spam and to better track user activity (and, if we're being charitable
to them, perhaps to stymie deliberate propaganda/fake news).

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
This.

A service I built+run started getting overrun with bot users. The signup
CAPTCHA didn’t help because they’d sign-up for accounts using humans - then
after that’s done they’d copy their access tokens to the bot users. We
couldn’t use a CAPTCHA for every operation on the platform.

But by requiring a real phone number that we verify (by placing a TTS phone
call - not an SMS - as processing received TTS calls is much harder for the
bot makers to automate) - but also looking-up the phone number’s SS7 info to
prevent people from using Skype, Google Voice, and Twilio users - all commonly
used by bot operators.

(Legitimate users that want an account but can’t make it past our bot screen
can still contact us directly to be set-up - and to-date no-one has done this
or complained about the (admittantly user-hostile) verification process.

~~~
sheepdestroyer
I despise services that require to have a real phone number. Being locked out
of something when you travel, have no reception, lost your phone or got it
stollen is just a pain. Bonus hate points for banks that implement a sms code
check for online payments with your visa/mastercard (common in France at
least). I changed bank for one that provided me with a device generating one
time codes from my CB

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
It’s only used for sign-up/registration in my case.

------
TechBro8615
It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters
messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link
“joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On
desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and
cannot be shared.

~~~
kccqzy
The differences are: (1) with Facebook it's a private company doing the
censoring and there's no issue with that, no First Amendment issues at all,
unlike WeChat where the censoring is heavily linked to the government; (2)
Facebook at least tells you when a message can't be sent but WeChat fails
silently.

~~~
JSavageOne
> it's a private company doing the censoring and there's no issue with that

That's certainly not a universally agreed upon perspective. Just because
you're a private company doesn't mean you can do anything you want (eg.
discrimination), hence the existence of regulations.

~~~
imajoo
I think one major issue with FB's stance is they say they are not a publisher
but rather a platform.. of course, they do tend to use whatever is convenient
to them sometimes.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-
mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit)

------
sacks2k
It's not just WeChat.

They own stakes in many american media companies and movie production houses.
They use this influence to also change our Media and push pro-Chinese
propaganda to the American public.

~~~
Aperocky
Can you show an example of blatant Chinese propaganda from those production
houses? One that are clearly separated from opinion?

Or are we using propaganda and opinions interchangeably here

~~~
BelleOfTheBall
How about the fact that a character in a Marvel movie, ostensibly an
inoffensive family film, who was originally Tibetian, was changed to a white
woman just so it could make money in China? I don't think Disney has any
Chinese ownership, but it's pretty blatant that the industry is bending over
backwards to not piss off China and get the box office returns there.

Here's a whole article on it: [https://www.cnet.com/features/marvel-is-
censoring-films-for-...](https://www.cnet.com/features/marvel-is-censoring-
films-for-china-and-you-probably-didnt-even-notice/)

------
arminiusreturns
I worked for a company that tried to require wechat. I refused. Never got any
flak, but missed a lot of comms from the first gen Chinese immigrants in the
company.

I posit they use WeChat more than just to censor/spy in wechat, but rather
more as an one of a set of apps that can be used to side-channel leak data
about the phone/user. (Israel is also the other giant player in this arena). I
don't understand any tech-savy privacy conscious person being ok with it,
other than being one of those who has completely given up on privacy.

There is a reason the military banned tiktok, for example. (and it's not just
because I've never seen a user on tiktok not look like total base-dumbass)

~~~
throwawaylolx
> (Israel is also the other giant player in this arena)

Mind elaborating on this?

~~~
GuiA
Do some research on the NSO Group.

------
jijji
People are routinely jailed in china for sending messages on WeChat [0] [1]
[2]... This has been going on almost on a daily basis since WeChat started...
Did anyone think they weren't monitoring and censoring it?

[0]
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jailed...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jailed-
for-a-text-chinas-censors-are-spying-on-mobile-chat-groups-1512665007)

[1]
[http://www.phayul.com/2020/03/22/42960/](http://www.phayul.com/2020/03/22/42960/)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/tech...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/technology/china-
huawei-iran-arrests.amp.html)

~~~
thekyle
Non-amp links:

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/jailed-for-a-text-chinas-
censor...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/jailed-for-a-text-chinas-censors-are-
spying-on-mobile-chat-groups-1512665007)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/technology/china-
huawei-i...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/technology/china-huawei-iran-
arrests.html)

------
yumraj
Honestly curious: knowing what everyone knows, why would any person who is not
of Chinese origin, use WeChat?

What's the use case?

~~~
JCharante
It's really useful for note taking. I'm logged in on my phone and main
computer, and as I watch lectures I can screenshot useful slides and send it
to the file transfer contact. I can also send a text message, and later its
search feature lets me go to the context where my query appeared. The messages
are stored locally on your devices so the query is lightning fast (unlike if I
were using slack).

I'll use it to evict stuff from my head so I can concentrate on other things
(a "oh yeah I'm running low on tomatoes" thought results in a message for me
to go back to later).

Since the UI is in the style of a messaging program then it's really low
friction to enter stuff, as opposed to a dedicated note taking application.
It's UI is also so clean and of a design not seen anymore.

Its QR code scanner is really good as well.

It should be noted that I'm also using it to message other people on the
platform, but half the time I switch to the application I'm not using it to
communicate with other people.

Someone may criticize sending so much data to "scary China" but I'm aware of
what data I send through the platforms that I use. You wouldn't send your
company's private information to a random server, and there's no reason why
any other non company sponsored platform should be trusted.

I'm not into discussing controversial topics so the most scandalous message
I've ever sent probably revolved around defending an unpopular bubble tea
shop. I have alternative contact means so it's not like I'm being restricted
in what I talk about. There's a proper time and place for everything. (and in
the west there's memes about landing on a list for viewing an edgy meme or
source).

~~~
ascorbic
But why WeChat? Any other chat app will do the same, without being monitored
by the Chnese government.

~~~
JCharante
Really? Messenger can't. Whatsapp can't. Snapchat can't. Zalo can't. GroupMe
can't (maybe I could create a solo group chatin it?. I don't remember telegram
having it. At some point app fatigue sets in and you don't want to install
even more apps.

I'm not setting up a second account just to have something to send it to.
Additionally the messages won't be available on my computer.

~~~
jaflo
Telegram allows you to chat and send messages to yourself. The search is
decent and searches through the rich text description of links you sent too
(so you can look for the title of a YouTube video despite having only sent the
link).

------
wolco
It's a feature not a bug. It was designed this way because it makes business
sense.

Why are Americans using WeChat I'm not sure.

~~~
seppin
Because it's the only way to communicate with 1/5 of the world's population?

~~~
viridian
About 1/6th these days. Pedantic I know, but it's super common for people to
not realize that China's population growth is nearly zero. India will likely
have more people than China by 2025.

~~~
seppin
My rule for pointing out small inconsistencies is: "does it change the point
of the argument?" My point was it's the only tool to communicate with a large
part of the world, 1/5 or 1/6 is immaterial.

------
einpoklum
Chinese state surveillance and state censorship is terrible. But - US', and
int'l corporations' mass surveillance, and censorship, is way up there in the
"degree of evil".

Please encourage your tech-savvy friends to use safer applications, like
Signal for messaging - not WhatsApp; and FOSS alternatives to Zoom, e.g.:

[https://fosspost.org/alternative-software/end-users/zoom-
alt...](https://fosspost.org/alternative-software/end-users/zoom-alternatives)

no less importantly - try to ween them off of GMail, Yahoo Mail, Outlook365 or
Apple mail.

~~~
intopieces
What's the problem with Apple mail?

~~~
einpoklum
No problem if you're already have:

Cc: spy_on_me@nsa.gov

on all your emails. Actually, that's not good enough, since your
correspondents need to have that too; plus, Apple probably monitors your
interactions with the webmail interface too and that can be scrutinized to
learn more about you.

~~~
intopieces
My threat model doesn't consider state-level actors. I presume that they'll
get me one way or another. It's the advertisers I'm worried about, and Apple
doesn't use this data for ads.

------
filereaper
Pretty much given up on WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger etc... in favor
of Signal.

Would like to see a similar analysis on Signal.

~~~
searchableguy
Been using [https://getsession.org/](https://getsession.org/)

I don't like how signal requires phone number.

------
dylan604
Regardless of what nationality an app is created under, in today's day and
age, why is not just assumed that any website/app is not slurping in all of
your data (usage, messages, location, wifi name, etc)? To me, all apps are
guilty until proven innocent.

~~~
duxup
What is the incentive for any app to do the right thing then?

It seems to me that coloring all apps the same regardless means that all apps
may as well just do exactly as you describe...

Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better...

~~~
mellow2020
> Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better...

Not until proven innocent, no. We need hardware and software we can inspect,
that's not an unattainable goal.

It may seem far away, but any other direction is _even_ worse... so I'd rather
head towards a goal that is far away than into a wilderness that is just as
far away, but boring and empty at best, terrible at worst.

~~~
duxup
I feel like the assumption that everyone is guilty just puts everyone on par
with the guilty so before proven innocent ... why bother?

It seems like the net effect would be to just provide cover for all actual
offenders making them equal with everyone.

------
Thowaway1841005
Why don’t democratic countries keep WeChat off the App stores or completely
block its network?

A company proposing a means of communication that would subtly or not so
subtly twist the communications towards authoritarianism should not stand. Why
would Some Country let Tencent silently block targeted messages between two of
its citizens?

Blocking WeChat altogether of course warrants discussion because some people
need to contact family and friends in China. But the discussion should happen
if more and more non-Chinese start using WhatsApp, if anything to protect non-
Chinese citizens from trouble the next time they visit China.

~~~
Aperocky
So the solution to the problem is to be more like the problem?

Also if you actually read you’ll find that your point in the second paragraph
not true. The filtering only happens with China based accounts whereas
surveillance are reportedly global.

------
usaar333
Clever experimental set-up (tl;dr they detect whether novel content first sent
between non-China accounts increases the probability of it being censored in
realtime when being sent to China accounts -- and it does -- implying a censor
(or perhaps a non-realtime automated system) looked at it).

I'm wondering though if this is intentional or just "incompetence/laziness".
WeChat itself seems self-interested in not bothering with content transmitted
outside China, but perhaps it is just such a small amount of their user-base,
that they never bothered setting up a "firewall".

------
s1mon
This article is somewhat out of date. Grindr was sold by its Chinese owners
after some of the concerns about privacy/security.
[https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-
national...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national-
security/)

------
tedk-42
This is common knowledge. You can't send a picture of winnie the pooh without
it being scanned first and deleted over the wire before being received.

People don't use WeChat to organise dissent against the government or for any
kind of malicious or illegal activity. The intention is for well meaning folk
to communicate and do business online.

~~~
dannyw
Implying that dissent isn’t done by well meaning people.

~~~
tedk-42
World isn't binary like you frame it to be.

~~~
commoner
Ironically, by implying that all "dissent against the government" is not done
by well-meaning people, you're the one portraying the world as binary.

Political dissent, including protests, demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, and
marches, have contributed to the advancement of society on many occasions.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=0yvPaXt3lyoC](https://books.google.com/books?id=0yvPaXt3lyoC)

The dissenters who galvanized these reforms were certainly well-meaning.

------
bottled_poe
Seems like a good opportunity for steganography to make its move

------
astatine
Excellent research! I have a feeling that many governments would be wondering
how to get this kind of power on their side. Envy > horror.

Every administration around the world fighting for loosening e2e secured
messaging protocols is basically envious of China!

------
code_duck
"non-China-registered accounts are subject to pervasive content surveillance
that was previously thought to be exclusively reserved for China-registered
accounts."

This is perhaps the least surprising discovery I've heard this entire year.

------
dvduval
Do you think they are using AI as they observe? Is some of this AI passive?
Obviously they wouldn't be able to spy on everyone, or else they would need a
lot of researchers haha

~~~
hardmaru
From the article, it looks like they have observed that the chat data is used
for cross referencing image hashes to text, but extending it to incorporate
and leverage representations learned via ML algorithms (supervised, or self-
supervised) should be quite straightforward.

~~~
jdc
They probably use something like NarusInsight, which according to Wikipedia,
can do real-time semantic analysis.

------
minusSeven
Do we have a website with list of all Chinese websites and apps that we can
have a look and not install them ?

I wonder if all this is applicable to Taiwanese companies as well or not.

------
rollschild
Between me and my girlfriend we use Signal. But for talking to anyone else I
have no choice but use WeChat. I just either don't have the power to persuade
others to use a more secure app, or they just don't care, or the cost of
switching to another app is too high. It's (relatively) easy to develop an
alternative with no censorship and pretty secure. The hard part is to make it
popular and avoid getting blocked in China.

------
Markoff
Can someone from Google please explain why is this literal spyware allowed in
Play Store?

And why ISPs don't block such obvious widely spread spyware?

~~~
lolc
I'm not affiliated with any of the players. Still the reason of why Wechat is
available is clear to me: Unlike many other apps that track you on the side,
this one is actually needed by a large chunk of Android users. And I mean
needed in the strong sense of losing family and business ties if it were
removed. It's pretty much utility-level at this point.

If your store doesn't have it, people will use another store. And if your
phone can't use that store, people will use another phone because that one is
useless to them.

We should discuss how people can get better choices than Wechat. But in the
end it will involve political solutions. Not just technical ones.

~~~
Markoff
strange, when I lived in China nobody cared I can't communicate with my family
abroad

for business everyone is using VPN or email, do you really think people will
be isntalling Chinese spyware to their phones to talk to their business
partners in China?

------
say_it_as_it_is
This isn't unique to WeChat. How do you think you receive free
teleconferencing services from Google?

~~~
donkeyd
Please back this massive claim up with some evidence.

If there is none, please realize that a lot of companies use G Suite and pay
for these services, which might allow Google to provide them for free to
individuals. I don't know for sure that this is the case, but I have seen no
evidence for your 'claim' either.

~~~
say_it_as_it_is
You want evidence that Google provides free services in exchange for tracking
and interpreting all of the content passed through its services, turning it
into a multi-billion dollar enterprise?

------
fulldecent2
Every app that does not have E2EE spies on the content that all users send
each other, including Americans.

------
min2bro
I think that's true for almost all the messengers. You dont know who is spying
and peeping into your chatbox. We've given so much power to social media and
softwares that they are kinda driving us now. Huh!!

------
chenzhekl
It seems the censorship is performed on documents and images that are
exchanged between users. I’m interested to know if text messages undergo such
a process as well .

------
bgorman
Did anyone actually think WeChat communications are secure?

Do we have reason to believe iMessage and Whatsapp are more secure?

~~~
FreakyT
This narrative of false equivalency is dangerous, IMO.

WeChat has been proven to be a heavily monitored and censored network.
Whatever security failings iMessage and WhatsApp have, they pale in comparison
to what's in place for WeChat.

~~~
forgot_again
The false equivalency also begs a deeper moral analysis. Let's assume the US
government has as complete access to iMessage and WhatsApp as the CCP does to
WeChat. The story doesn't end there, since you have to examine the nature of
the entities that have access to your information.

Would I prefer that access be held by the US Government, which for all its
faults is extremely engaged with and integrated into the global system,
beholden to Law and a robust court system which enforces a strict set of
checks and balances on its behavior, and is philosophically rooted in
individual liberty?

Or would I prefer the CCP, which does not even recognize the concept of
individual liberty, is beholden to no one but itself and its own desires, and
ruthlessly upholds its iron and unquestioned (unquestionable, at least in
China) will upon the entire nation with absolutely 0 oversight?

Yeah, gonna go with the US here.

~~~
cyphar
I disagree with several aspects of your depiction of the US's "robust court
system" (especially in the case of mass surveillance). There have been several
attempts by citizens to sue the US Government for their illegal and
indiscriminate surveillance programs, but have been stonewalled for years by
government lawyers arguing that such cases should not happen in public courts
(where they could be held accountable) due to "national security risks". Not
to mention that the NSA has their own interpretation of the US Constitution
which completely twists the meaning of "collection" to allow indiscriminate
mass surveillance to not be seen as "unreasonable search and seizure". Then
there's the whole FISA court system, which rejects so few requests that it is
in every sense of the word a rubber stamp court. And even if the court system
is "robust" \-- let's not forget that the PATRIOT Act exists (though it turns
out that the NSA actually violated even the minimal restrictions present in
the PATRIOT Act).

Now, is China any better? Of course not, and the CCP has countless policies
which are far worse to their own people than the US. But the key question is
-- do you live in or have any connection to China? If not, then I would go
with the CCP surveillance because there is no obvious mechanism for such
surveillance to harm you directly. On the other hand, if you live in a 5-EYES
country (as I do), any data obtained from US surveillance can be used in
parallel construction (or other not-entirely-legal methods). Hell, here in
Australia our mass surveillance systems have been used to punish minor
infringements such as littering.

Obviously I'd prefer not to be surveilled at all, but between the two I'd
choose the one that has the smallest threat of direct impact on my life.

~~~
Cyph0n
> But the key question is -- do you live in or have any connection to China?
> If not, then I would go with the CCP surveillance because there is no
> obvious mechanism for such surveillance to harm you directly.

Tell that to the forcibly disappeared political dissidents, or to the Uyghurs
who are being "re-educated" as we speak.

And remember, even if you're not connected to China _now_ , that can always
change in the future.

~~~
cyphar
I'm not sure I see where we're disagreeing. Yes, if you have a connection to
China then you should opt to evade CCP surveillance and there are many CCP
policies which are awful towards groups in China. That's what I said.

My point is that if you have a connection to the US (as all 5-EYES and allied
countries do), then _today_ that has a more direct impact on your life than
any theoretical future risk that the CCP will be able to have a direct impact
over your life. The premise of this discussion is that you have to choose one
or the other. I am well aware of the massive threat that is retroactive
surveillance, which is why I would choose neither (obviously).

> Tell that to the forcibly disappeared political dissidents, or to the
> Uyghurs who are being "re-educated" as we speak.

Those are all people who have direct connections to China in some respect, and
what has been done to them are all horrific human rights abuses. However, I
don't see what that has to do with what I said.

~~~
Cyph0n
If you only consider the direct, personal impact on you as an individual with
no current or future ties to China, then sure, the risk is probably lower.
However, it is important to note that CCP surveillance is much more intrusive
in general.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're not taking into account the fact
that your use of CCP-backed services implicitly contributes to human rights
and surveillance abuses _within_ China. Once you consider this, I think
minimizing the use of these products and services is worth incurring the added
"risk" of being surveilled by the Five Eyes.

------
teknopaul
China bashing is not an intelligent COVID19 response. It will only encourage
China to close up more.

------
seganddr
are they censoring things like the concentration camps that China has with
over a million people in them? [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-50511063](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063)

------
avainlakech
Thankfully my intuition told me to never participate in this app.

------
greatss
WeChat/CCP is far more dangerous virus then Corona virus.

------
gigatexal
As the world moves more and more to an Orwellian-dystopia things like this
don’t surprise me much. In the states Google and Facebook do the same thing:
data and monetizing it for better ads in a capitalistic sense vs. using it to
suppress dissent and bolster government power when the PBOC does it.

I am free to say vile things about political leaders (so long as I don’t flat
out call for anyone’s harm) here in the west which is nice. I feel bad for my
fellow nerds in mainland China that don’t have as much access to the same
information and opportunities that a largely free internet affords. I hope
that one day we will see a liberalizing of China in this regard.

------
pknerd
All our chats, regardless of the app or country, are monitored by authorities.
Not sure what is the purpose of singling out WeChat only.

Can anyone enlighten me?

~~~
throwawaylolx
Other apps don't have a policy to censor anti-government talk.

~~~
pknerd
Are you sure?

~~~
throwawaylolx
Please feel free to provide examples of mainstream Western apps censoring
criticisms of government.

~~~
pknerd
Facebook? Facebook was asked US government to censor/ban political things.
Twitter removed Alex Jones for Coronavirus conspiracies, examples are various.

~~~
throwawaylolx
I believe you're right--that's not so different to what WeChat is doing.

------
kerng
I uninstalled WeChat over a year ago.

------
pwfee
That’s not cool man

------
turowicz
What a surprise...

------
warmcat
No surprise there.

------
hyko
Duh.

------
ycombonator
Also check Zoom while you are at it.

~~~
shasheene
You are being downvoted, maybe because Citizen Lab has already investigated
Zoom before: [https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-
crypto...](https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto-a-
quick-look-at-the-confidentiality-of-zoom-meetings/)

That report is one of the reasons why Zoom has such a poor reputation for
security. The other being Zoom is largely Made In China software, so subject
to the requirements of China's totalitarian government: to bolster domestic
industries by stealing technology and R&D from around the world (by
infiltrating companies, communication networks, computer servers and end-user
devices using any software and individuals it has influence over, including
hackers from Ministry of State Security and People's Liberation Army).

This is achieved through direct legal requirements to co-operate with Ministry
of State Security corporate espionage (via China's 2017 National Intelligence
Law), and more broadly through the China's attempts to switch the allegiances
of all ethnically Chinese people through the overseas political interference
organization called the "United Front Work Department"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXPxWtl8Zw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXPxWtl8Zw)),
and also through the Thousand Talents Plan.

------
somerandomness
I dare you to share on wechat

------
stretchwithme
Of course. This is what the CCP does. They are sucking up every piece of
information they can, whether or not they can currently make use it.

We ought to block any know tools that a foreign government uses to spy on our
citizens. They block everything of ours and anything that offers a different
point of view.

------
apta
Why is anyone surprised by this? We should ban chinese apps.

------
kccqzy
This is old news though, to most people using WeChat. For example, the same
people documented similar findings last year:
[https://citizenlab.ca/2019/07/cant-picture-this-2-an-
analysi...](https://citizenlab.ca/2019/07/cant-picture-this-2-an-analysis-of-
wechats-realtime-image-filtering-in-chats/) and three years ago:
[https://citizenlab.ca/2017/04/we-cant-chat-709-crackdown-
dis...](https://citizenlab.ca/2017/04/we-cant-chat-709-crackdown-discussions-
blocked-on-weibo-and-wechat/)

~~~
Lammy
Somebody says this every single time something nefarious gets revealed.
Confirmation lets debate move past "whether or not it's happening".

------
FpUser
Don't you worry, the US pays in kind.

~~~
austincummings
This sort of comment is so tiring to see. There is an obvious difference.

~~~
Cyph0n
Yep. I guess a lot of people don't realize how intrusive and prevalent Chinese
surveillance and censorship is.

------
htoooth
too young to simple.

All message is under China control.

------
fma
Signal and telegram if you don't wanna be spied on...

~~~
system2
How can you trust them?

------
dhab
Everyone's spying - US, China, Europe, Middle East, East. Some are lesser
known to detain and try in secret courts (USA), others are known to do that
rampantly (china)

~~~
seppin
On other countries, not on their own citizens with the intention of censoring
and persecuting political crimes.

Big difference.

------
briga
Are there articles in China talking about how Google and Facebook spy on the
content that all users send each other, including Chinese?

~~~
intro-b
Considering how banned Google and Facebook products are in China, I'm not sure
what you're getting at with this comment.

~~~
briga
Not all Chinese people live in China. My comment might have made more sense
before the post title changed.

Just pointing out that American companies engage in similar sorts of
surveillance and censorship that Chinese companies do, although admittedly the
CCP is more heavy-handed and paternalistic in its approach.

~~~
intro-b
I feel like the bevy of comments changing the topic to American tech/media
companies every time the main parent post is China-centric is predictable and
exhausting. It's rarely a new or interesting take, and mostly just derails the
conversation on the original thread.

------
dvduval
I communicate regularly with people in mainland China. For me the best policy
is just don't say anything that I would be too concerned about being shared.
Of course, my behavior is the same for other apps. Beyond government-level
type hacking, I feel a little more safe on some of the Chinese apps, as I know
they have a stronger hand in their ability to stop hackers and scammers.

~~~
bosswipe
Self censoring is exactly what the authoritarian regime wants you to do.

~~~
MattGaiser
China is 80% of the way there with this guy already.

~~~
dvduval
When I get "there" what would that be like? You are funny. But you don't know
me.

~~~
MattGaiser
> For me the best policy is just don't say anything that I would be too
> concerned about being shared

You embrace state influence in full regarding your thoughts and words.

~~~
dvduval
I embrace that virtually anywhere I post there are going to be some
repercussions of doing so. For example, here I will be downvoted if I post
something that people don't like.

