
“Whistleblower welcome in China” - teawithcarl
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-06/14/c_132455893.htm
======
songgao
This is disgusting. A news agency that is known for defending its own
governments' dirty stuff, twisting truth, and manipulating public opinions, is
now appreciating a freedom fighter and a human rights activist.

It's apparently not because what Snowden did matches their core values, or
they want the same thing happen in China. Oh yes, they certainly like Snowden.
It's because Snowden exposed some bad things done by US authorities, and they
can use this as political tool; furthermore they can finally take this and say
to Chinese people, hey, US does this too. You like the freedom in US? That's
all bullshit.

If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing
happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was
xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize
recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by
western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo
spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and
constitution enforcement in China.

Xinhuanet basically writes what the government tells them to write, and say
what the government tells them to say.

[1]
[http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/15/c_12664760.htm](http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/15/c_12664760.htm)

[2] [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-
CN&u=http:...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-
CN&u=http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/15/c_12664760.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E6%2596%25B0%25E5%258D%258E%25E7%25BD%2591%2B%25E5%2588%2598%25E6%2599%2593%25E6%25B3%25A2%2Bsite:xinhuanet.com%26biw%3D1304%26bih%3D776)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Nobel_Peace_Prize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Nobel_Peace_Prize)

EDIT: typos

~~~
justinschuh
I'd say what Snowden is doing fits fits their core values and goals perfectly.
He's spreading gross misinformation and propaganda that's damaging to the US
government and major US based technology companies. The fact that he may be
doing it out of well-intentioned ignorance rather than willfully doesn't
strike me as a big sticking point from their perspective.

[edit: I'm not surprised this is getting downmodded without any actual
counterarguments. My comment is a bit too flippant, and the Snowden story
really plays to the prevailing biases of the tech crowd. Still this whole
episode does have me a little saddened by how otherwise intelligent people can
behave so irrationally when something fits what they want to believe.]

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
"He's spreading gross misinformation and propaganda that's damaging to the US
government and major US based technology companies."

It is not propaganda if it is true, like the members of congress have
admitted.

American companies and country own the world, they have power to abuse and
they do. Is that hard to understand?

Like any other Empire, they fall down over its own weight.

~~~
justinschuh
We already know the majority of his claims are not true, or are grossly
misrepresented. The latest bit of noise is a congressman with no background on
intelligence who misunderstood a briefing he received and just made an ass of
himself in public. Just like all the other articles on this, we'll get
corrections and clarifications over the next several days that basically
amount to a retraction, but I expect that's not what you'll remember.

------
glurgh
_a program which marks the bleakest moment yet in the history of the Internet_

Writes someone from the other side of the Great Firewall.

~~~
Breakthrough
While I agree it was a bit odd to read this coming from someone in _China_
(given the state of their own internet), I'm as surprised as you are to have
read this.

However, you have to read between the lines:

> _How do we make sense of the fact that the market and the state colluded in
> the abuse of private information via what represents the backbone of many
> modern day infrastructures? [...] How do we understand the one-sided cyber
> attack accusations the U.S. has poured upon China in the past few months?_

After I read those two questions, I realized, there was a difference. People
in China know about the firewall. Sure, they have no choice, but the
government isn't going behind their backs or allowing them unrestricted
internet access and penalizing those who access "disallowed" content.

And I do, for one, agree with that last question; I hardly could believe that
the US was just taking cyberattacks from China for _years_ without at least
attempting to get some revenge (and indeed, I know the US has the resources to
fight back).

That being said, I admit I did laugh a bit to myself at this part:

> _this force is acting in an unconstitutional manner and entirely contrary to
> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights_

And that's when I started reading in-between the lines, because half of it's
the truth, and half of it's probably state-ordered propaganda. The only
difference this time is that this propaganda has some truth to it.

~~~
glurgh
_I realized, there was a difference. People in China know about the firewall._

That's the part they know about. Political dissenters in China are actively
censored, suppressed, imprisoned, spied upon - systematic efforts to access
overseas email accounts of dissidents and the personal computers of
journalists outside of China have also been reported. So the government is
most certainly 'going behind their backs' and doing a great deal more.

But my point wasn't really to discuss the ways in which China isn't actually
an open democratic society - everyone knows that. I usually hesitate to use
the word 'propaganda' since it tends to be broadly over-applied to things like
'US Congressperson says a stupid thing' which are just 'someone saying a
stupid thing' rather than propaganda. But this particular item is clearly a
piece of hypocritically indignant state-sponsored propaganda. There's a great
deal to talk about regarding the NSA surveillance programs - I just have a
really hard time imagining how this sort of piece is a useful or interesting
starting point for any such discussion.

------
unreal37
Did anyone catch the dig against Chinese Internet freedom?

"For this reason China, despite the fact that it does not have a good
reputation as far as Internet governance is concerned, should move boldly and
grant Snowden asylum."

If this is official government propaganda, why are they saying China doesn't
have a good reputation?

The article also calls for Google to withdraw from the United States on the
same grounds it withdrew from China - hacking of Gmail and state surveillance.

~~~
nadrafia
Communist agitprop. They know that unless they address the bad reputation
their article will lack credibility. They aren't stupid.

I think the article is hilarious and I'm glad China is sticking it to the US.
Not because I support China, but because I hope this makes Americans
uncomfortable with the prosecution of American whistleblowers to the point
that something will actually change.

------
teawithcarl
Having researched China for 27 years, 北京大学等等 -

I thought the official Xinhua editorial would be interesting to an HN
audience.

Actually, this New Yorker article is better.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885327)

Evan Osnos, a top journalist in Beijing.

------
cft
Mark my words: by 2041 china will be a freer country than the United States.
It is already economically freer in the free economic zones such as Shenzhen.

~~~
pinaceae
Mark my words: You're a delusional idiot. Today, not in 2041.

Seriously, have you _been_ to China? Have you dealt with their government?
TEHRE ARE NO FREE ELECTIONS IN CHINA. You fucking, fucking idiot.

~~~
cft
Iran has free elections too: just today they chose a new president out of six
candidates. The ad-hominem speech that you exhibit has always been
characteristic of communists: Lenin was a master of it for one. And that's
where US is slowly going...

~~~
wavefunction
I voted you up, but keep in mind it was 6 candidates acceptable to the
existing power structure.

~~~
ericd
Keep in mind that US elections are generally between 2 candidates acceptable
to the existing power structure, with a sideshow of more
novel/progressive/interesting candidates who can't win because it's set up to
be almost structurally impossible for them to.

~~~
wavefunction
I would be the first person to agree with you.

~~~
ericd
How do we fix it :-/ I think a proportional voting system would open it up,
but that conversation is so far from the one we have on the national stage
that it seems ludicrous.

~~~
wavefunction
I don't know, it's so completely complicated. I would think we'd have to move
to a parliamentary system to really break the duopoly. The media demonizes and
marginalizes any other political parties in America, and Americans want to be
"winners" so some even vote for a party based only on the perception that they
will be the triumphant side.

The problem is that it seems like for most people, choosing between a few
options is preferable than to have to carefully examine and choose from a
wider array.

------
brokentone
Slightly off topic: China must be very happy about this revelation. We (US)
have been criticizing their "great firewall" for so long, but now it's
revealed that we have our own program with similar motivations, only a
different execution. Rather than burying and censoring information, this
surveils your usage of certain information and calls you a terror threat when
you step outside the lines.

~~~
tptacek
It takes an enormous amount of rationalizing to compare a system of overt and
pervasive government censorship of the Internet --- a system run by the
government that _blocks access_ to things the government doesn't want its
citizens to read --- to even the most egregiously editorialized assumptions
Glenn Greenwald has come up with.

~~~
brokentone
I'm certainly playing the devil's advocate to some degree and being
hyperbolic, but fact is we, or should I speak for my self and say I, have been
on high moral ground for quite some time, demonizing the "great firewall,"
applauding Google's circumventions, etc. Yet now we find out we're far closer
than we would like to be, and have been for some time.

~~~
tptacek
This is a slippery claim; anything the NSA does that you don't approve of
would enable you to claim we're "far closer than we'd like to be" to China.
It's a phrasing designed to end discussion, not encourage it.

------
betterunix
I cannot be the only one who found this line to be amusing:

"Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of
China.org.cn."

~~~
Zigurd
#leastuntruthful

------
shawnz
Misleading title: this appears to be an opinion article about why the Chinese
government should grant him asylum.

~~~
teawithcarl
It's an official (propaganda) editorial, from the highest level.

Many of the top foreign journalists in Beijing tweeted this official post.

~~~
eupharis
Looks like Snow isn't being extradited. Xinhua is the official press agency of
the state. Editorial or no, this didn't get posted without the state's nod.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency)

------
pinaceae
Whistleblowers that serve China's needs.

Oh, you're a whistleblower _against_ any Chinese policy? Say goodbye to your
freedom and count yourself lucky if you don't end up in a stadium with a
bullet in your head.

~~~
Systemic33
Lets try this experiment;

Title: “Whistleblower welcome in US”

The Comment:

Whistleblowers that serve US needs. Oh, you're a whistleblower against any US
policy? Say goodbye to your freedom and count yourself lucky if you don't end
up in Guantanamo with a waterbucket around your head.

Interesting how beliveable this actually sounds...

Lesson learned: Don't throw with stones if you live in a glass house.

~~~
snambi
please don't try it. The population of US may double in a very short time.

~~~
jafaku
What do you mean?

------
Pherdnut
I don't think I would want to be an ex-NSA agent with "asylum" in Russia or
China right now or at any time in the near-future.

~~~
teawithcarl
Agreed - very dangerous for Snowden to be in China, considering that torture
is routinely used in interrogation.

~~~
speeder
And the US do not waterboard people it interrogated right?

~~~
skaevola
Waterboarding was banned in 2009 by presidential order.

~~~
handelaar
On the same day he signed an order to close the detention facility in
Guantanamo, if memory serves.

------
tptacek
Xinhua is the official news outlet of China; they're China's Pravda. They
aren't doing Snowden any favors in the US by writing this, but, of course,
that's not the point.

~~~
dear
I agree that they are not doing Snowden any favors by writing this piece. It
makes him look more suspicious. They should just shut up and watch the show.

~~~
marcosdumay
Why would they want to do Snowden any favors? Their best move is to be very
vocal, and milk the scandal for all its worth.

------
mark_l_watson
I don't intend on being too harsh on this article, but I must say that it
seems about as skewed as a Fox "News" broadcast.

It is not too difficult to find less biased coverage - my favorite technique
is to take a story I am interested in and then read two or three articles
about it from different countries.

------
toyg
If Xinhua is taking a stand, it means the Chinese government decided they
quite like the situation as it is. Looks like Snowden's bet paid off: he'll
likely not face extradition from Hong Kong after all, and SEALs teams will be
kept at bay.

The boy is hella smart.

------
e3pi
Considering its origin, anyone have a firm-handle on the Miss Liberty
political cartoon? Who's the rat?

------
dear
So what's wrong with this article?

~~~
frozenport
1\. _Hypocrisy of those who preach about Internet_ . The USA might be spying
but they don't aggressively remove anti-American content. Much unlike China
where criticism of the lives of its political elite will get your foreign
website blocked.

2\. China has no tolerance for those that _embody the courage to fight against
the system_. It has a military interest in learning what Snowden knows. We may
even see Snowden go from wistleblower to traitor.

China's Internet policy is increasingly leading to cultural isolation,
xenophobia and bellicose nationalism. I don't trust _Fang Yang_ and other
social engineers to control the feelings they cultivate.

