
China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants - Ajedi32
https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/china-xinjiang-surveillance-tech-spread/
======
whisk
I have read some stories during the year without Internet in Xinjiang.

In fact people can still connect to local network then, they just disconnected
the link from province level ISP to Internet.

Some young mans built local websites provides movie, softwares downloads, news
and bbs inside the LAN. They travels to nearest town outside Xinjiang every
week by train, download new resources in net bar, bring them back in hard disk
and update their websites. Nobody knows how long will the disconnection last
and somebody prepared to maintain the LAN from long years. It makes me recall
20 years ago I access contents on Internet through CD-ROM in magazines.

In the end, the Internet recovered and these websites soon disappeared.

~~~
themodelplumber
Wow. I love hearing about the persistence under those conditions. Reminds me a
bit of what I've heard of Cuba, a semi-sneakernet setup.

~~~
rqs
I'm not local, but actually, there are many stories published by locals during
that time, most of it are written in Chinese of course.

You can still found some of it by googling keyword "新疆断网", and Google
Translate them if you interested to read.

In summary: In the first few days, people miss the access; Then, they built
their own network, providing news, BBS, downloading and even online gaming
services etc.

If they had enough time, I could assume they will build a complete alternative
of China's Internet, just like what happened in the China's Internet then the
access to the true Internet is limited.

But "enough time" is what they don't have, when the access been restored, most
local websites are faded.

------
otoburb
>> _For the next 10 months, web access would be almost nonexistent in
Xinjiang, a vast region larger than Texas with a population of more than 20
million. It was one of the most widespread, longest internet shutdowns ever._

SpaceX's plans to launch their first set of satellites for their Starlink
broadband constellation[1]. Uighers may be the first population to sign up for
satellite subscriptions, although the Chinese government is probably looking
for ways to extend Great Firewall[2] capabilities to satellites too. Hopefully
users can afford the tentative pricing model of $750/year for a Starlink
subscription.

[1] [http://www.dw.com/en/spacexs-starlink-satellite-internet-
its...](http://www.dw.com/en/spacexs-starlink-satellite-internet-its-time-for-
tough-talk-on-cyber-security-in-space/a-42678704)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall)

~~~
walrus01
Former satellite telecom engineer here, have built high capacity two way C,
Ku, X and Ka band earth stations. Two big problems with China:

1\. Smuggle rooftop CPE into country? Manufacture domestically in grey market
factories?

2\. Very low cost for Chinese law enforcement, in Xinjiang, to buy and use
portable spectrum analyzers to locate the Tx frequencies coming from a
30cm-50cm sized rooftop phase array antenna, aimed at the sky. To be a viable
satellite broadband product it has to have a fairly strong Tx (in EIRP). No
matter what band it is in from 10.5 up to 70GHz.

~~~
trevyn
Question: Would it be similarly easy to locate such a transmitter if it were
on an exceptionally busy ISM band?

Also, what if upstream transmission rate was reduced?

~~~
walrus01
1) The problem with using an ISM band for earth to space is precisely because
it's exceptionally noisy. You want the best possible SNR for two way
satellite, either direction. With a small satellite that orbits relatively
close (LEO to low MEO, compared to geostationary), which will likely have a
system architecture composed of numerous focused spot beams... If you were to
design a series of spot beam on the satellite body with ISM band antennas
aimed at major cities all you would achieve is gathering noise.

2) Not going to help much unless the upstream is so little that's basically
useless. The same antenna is used for both Rx and Tx so you still need
significant gain to overcome the path loss and have sufficient link budget for
the space-to-earth traffic.

------
pentae
So can anyone tell me why we should support what China is doing? Why should
any entrepreneur or tech worker go there and support this government? How come
China seems to get a free pass on human rights issues like this by western
society?

~~~
_cs2017_
Because keeping a large diverse country stable and safe is very difficult, and
a failure causes enormous tragedy. The approach that works to keep the US
stable does not always work well in other countries.

To keep the billion people who live in China safe from civil war and rampant
terrorism is already a great achievement -- even it comes at the expense of
some nice things such as human rights. In fact, China manages to do more than
just keep itself stable; it's actually improving economically. That state of
affairs is a lot better than many, many countries can even dream about.

A push for human rights increases the chance of a government collapse. That's
what happened in the Soviet Russia during Gorbachev. It was everyone's luck
that it resulted in relatively little suffering. A similar fall of the
government in Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc were absolutely horrible for the
people living in those countries. It is very hard to accept even a small risk
of such an event in China; the suffering it would cause is beyond imagination.

Therefore, many people are quite happy with the approach followed by the
Chinese government. In fact, it gives many people a hope that China might
become a little similar to Singapore. The Singapore government has some issues
with human rights (of course, much more modest than China), but is still
highly respected both inside and outside the country precisely due to the
prosperity and safety it brought to people.

Of course, for people who absolutely prioritize human rights, this is not good
enough. But such people have relatively little influence outside the Western
civilization. One certainly cannot blame people who prioritize the safety and
prosperity of their family above human rights, and these people seem to be by
far the majority of the Chinese population.

~~~
ghostcluster
The ruling ethnic elite (and fully 91.51% of the population as of 2010) are
Han Chinese, and you could say they enforce somewhat of an ethnostate.
Foreigners cannot become citizens even if they marry a native Chinese and
contribute to their economy.

~~~
Arn_Thor
Pretty strong cases have been made that the Han Chinese ethnicity is an
invention. This makes some sense given China's pre-CCP plethora of wildly
different languages, and quite distinct appearance differences between
provinces. That's hard to explain if one adopts the "majority ethnicity" view.
Of course, from a practical perspective, once everyone believes the myth then
it's a de facto reality

[https://www.hrichina.org/en/content/4573](https://www.hrichina.org/en/content/4573)
[http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/04/13/the-myth-of-one-
china/](http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/04/13/the-myth-of-one-china/)

~~~
ghostcluster
"Han is a social construct" doesn't change the fact that they operate as a de
facto ethnostate that keeps foreigners out and their more phenotypically
distinct ethnic minorities out of power.

------
sonnhy
They talk about China yet still a few realize that we are as well going into
that direction. CCTV are everywhere, Facebook and Google have our identities,
what we like, what we look for, what will be our probable next move (also in
terms of real world position) and our routines. If ever a Chinese that feel
safe in his home comes to the outer world (to us) he would say "how could this
nation is so undeveloped to not already have a better security likes us" and
we would be amazed and reply how he does not, instead, feel so stalked in his
state. But still, if we were to go on a third world nation we would ask the
same and the local people would reply at us the same way as we did to the
chinese.

~~~
fdsak
I think Chinese are not that smart to use some fancy words like "freedom of
speech" "democracy" "individual liberty" but still doing same things as all
other is doing. The problem here is how some country builds narrative and
justification around her actions.

Digital age is double edge sword and everyone is going to bleed under the
pretext of security.

~~~
jonathanstrange
China is a _one-party system_ in which the country is run by a single cadre of
'politicians'. There is corruption everywhere and there are Draconian laws
which are applied _selectively_ and sometimes enforced and sometimes not (e.g.
half of all food stands in cities are illegal, riding motorbikes is illegal in
many cities, etc.). Internet and phone calls are constantly monitored and
filtered based on certain words to the extent that if you use a certain word
even in a different and completely innocuous context your phone call is
interrupted or your internet connection stops working. There are hundreds of
political prisoners and laws are applied selectively based on your standing
within the party. There are political re-education camps and critiques of the
government are frequently arrested under bogus and clearly invented pretexts,
are often often put under house arrest, and are constantly harassed and
surveilled by all kinds of authorities. Public protests are persecuted as
uprisings against the state, using various deliberately vague and overly broad
laws.

The idea that the differences between China and freer countries are merely a
matter of the 'narrative' is patently ridiculous. It is also false, because
according to the Chinese constitution, "...citizens of the People's Republic
of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association,
of procession, and of demonstration." So yes, China officially has the same
narrative, it just doesn't have any due process, has massive surveillance not
even remotely comparable to Western countries, and suffers from massive
corruption in the hands of a single 'party'.

~~~
fdsak
I think its not "ridiculous" if you look at the outcome the narrative of fee
societies is democracy which they use as weapon to destroy and plunder other
countries, capture resources. I am not concerned how much a state is good with
their own people but if they are using that same context to wage a war in
another part of world that is so bad, uncivilized and undemocratic. For
example if China start to export their socialism through force and use that to
capture resources I ll be first to oppose that idea. China is massively big
country with its third-world problems and new digital age issues one cannot
suggest same pill as use in west.

West has lost all moral ground to become a world leader on these issues after
what has happen and is happening to various middle eastern countries in recent
day.

And what is current happening to these communities in China are direct side
effect of West's interest in these issues and exploitation (e.g their rebel
leader is current living in American) and every country has right to clean
their backyard not just US or some other country.

~~~
jonathanstrange
You're offering nothing but lame excuses. You have not provided a single
reason why China could not be a more democratic country with more than one
party, less corruption, and more reasonable laws that are applied with due
process and not selectively. The idea that more freedom and less corruptions
inevitably leads to unrest is a non-sequitur. It has worked out quite well for
those former East Bloc countries that are now in the EU.

You're also deviating from the topic. It is quite obviously and ostensively
possible to have all these benefits for your citizens without oppressing other
countries or waging unjust wars, in fact the majority of countries with a high
degree of freedom, a multi-party system, and a high degree of due process are
currently not waging any wars at all.

~~~
fdsak
Give me example of one single country that is not waging any war or complicit
of it ?

The other point is why the world should go by force for democracy?

Democracy is freedom, I don't like that democracy I am happy with dictatorship
why someone should cry ? ( not pointing at you).

Lets say whole population is happy with their dictator and living a decent
life,unless someone is arming rebels and inciting political turmoil by funding
innocent people. Why you should interfere in their lives ?

So the question here is , is this political turmoil in China is happening
purely by the desire of local populace or someone is funding because they have
a hidden agenda ? As we have seen in recent year and seeing this elsewhere e.g
in Syria where Us and West are engaged , this has not been just local desire
but neighbors and everyone else interested in certain Geo-political goals,
which kills the idea and need for democracy.

Democracy should come by learning by indigenous people, for indigenous it
should not be "MY" desire or someone else desire.

~~~
jonathanstrange
> _Give me example of one single country that is not waging any war or
> complicit of it ?_

Almost every democratic country if you hadn't changed the topic again. We were
talking about waging a war, not "being complicit" or small-scale interventions
like e.g. currently in Afghanistan. For instance, sending fighter jets
equipped with cameras instead of bombs is not "waging a war".

I also don't think that it is fair to portray e.g. international alliances
against ISIS as evil and unjust wars.

 _> The other point is why the world should go by force for democracy?_

We shouldn't. I said that it's in the genuine interest of all Chinese people
to get rid of their one-party system, get due process and fairer application
of law, and have a multi-party system.

 _> Democracy is freedom, I don't like that democracy I am happy with
dictatorship why someone should cry ? ( not pointing at you)._

Because democracy is not primarily about your personal freedom, it's about
maximizing freedom for everyone and also about due process and separation of
powers. Being happy about dictatorship is not a consistent political position.
If you benefit from a dictatorship, then it lies in the nature of
dictatorships without due process that that's a mere coincidence for you. You
could just as well be sent to a Gulag and tortured in besaid dictatorship. But
the fact that you're personally happy with some particular dictatorship is not
a valid argument for dictatorship as a form of governance. Nobody really wants
dictatorship _in general_ , if at all you might find a dictatorship from which
you benefit somewhat desirable. I am not _for_ democracy, because I personally
benefit from it.

Why crying about it? Because the dictatorship you crave will invariably be bad
for many other people, and normally functioning human beings are generally
capable of compassion and empathy.

 _Lets say whole population is happy with their dictator and living a decent
life,unless someone is arming rebels and inciting political turmoil by funding
innocent people. Why you should interfere in their lives ?_

You should not, at least not from the outside, and I have never argued for
that.

However, the whole argument is fairly academic, because the vast majority of
people are simply not happy with dictatorships. It's just easy for countries
without due process and lots of terror and intimidation to mask this, e.g.
people in surveys will not tell you the truth. In fact, the more totalitarian
the country, the less critical they will appear to be of their leaders. Of
course, people under Pol Pot were afraid of making critical remarks, because
they did not want to be suffocated with a plastic bag.

That being said, since you were deviating again, I have not claimed that China
is a dictatorship.

 _Democracy should come by learning by indigenous people, for indigenous it
should not be "MY" desire or someone else desire._

I believe there is ample evidence, both historical and individual, that
democracy is everyone's desire upon sincere reflection. Or, at least there is
a historic development towards democracy that has had positive effects that
are impossible to deny. That's a mere tendency, of course, you will always
find naysayers. There is also a lot of disagreement about how to get there,
and that's quite reasonable.

~~~
IWeldMelons
Although I agree, that democracy is preferable over dictatorship, if
everything else stays equal, but many,many people would prefer to live n a low
corruption/good healthcare/good education authoritarian Belarus than in freer
but more poor and corrupt Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan.

------
vondur
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Chinese authorities want. What
everyone else wants isn't their concern.

~~~
ghostcluster
they actually have a very tense, tenuous relationship with their citeznry and
its propensity for public demonstrations that keep the government in line.
there is a breaking point they know they have to avoid.

> The number of annual protests has grown steadily since the early 1990s, from
> approximately 8700 “mass group incidents” in 1993[1] to over 87,000 in
> 2005.[2] In 2006, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated the
> number of annual mass incidents to exceed 90,000, and Chinese sociology
> professor Sun Liping estimated 180,000 incidents in 2010.[3][4] Mass
> incidents are defined broadly as "planned or impromptu gathering that forms
> because of internal contradictions", and can include public speeches or
> demonstrations, physical clashes, public airings of grievances, and other
> group behaviors that are seen as disrupting social stability.

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

~~~
smallnamespace
At least a few years ago, de Toqueville's 'On the Old Regime and the
Revolution' was on the Communist Party's reading list [1].

The Chinese Civil War of '49 and then the Cultural Revolution (where most of
the then-current Party leadership suffered) is still within living memory of
the ruling class. Of course they understand that there is an implicit contract
between themselves and the rest of society, even if it the terms of the deal
are not arrived at in a democratic fashion.

The question is not whether China will eventually devolve more political power
to the populace——that is almost a given, considering the growing economic and
cultural power of the middle class; it's whether this will happen suddenly and
violently via another revolution, or gradually by the Party bringing
dissenting voices into the fold widening the circle of acceptable, public
political discourse.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2013/01/15/chinese-
societ...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2013/01/15/chinese-society-
through-the-prism-of-past-revolutions/#4d584b13234a)

~~~
kashprime
> The question is not whether China will eventually devolve more political
> power to the populace——that is almost a given

This idea was popular in 2013 when this article was written, but Xi's regime
has indeed shown that greater prosperity can be had with increased repression.
Turmoil in America only underlines this.

~~~
yusuke10
> greater prosperity can be had with increased repression.

Fake prosperity between 2012 and now. 300%+ debt ratio. High government debt.
High (state) corporate debt. creeping up Household debt. Several provinces
disclosed 20-30% fake revenue. Xi's government now stresses stability over GDP
growth (sign of weakness). Several high-level Chinese economists warn of an
economic crash in China.

~~~
Arn_Thor
Building cities and state infrastructure costs money. China is in practice
following pretty standard Keynesian thought. Educated people can and do
disagree about whether it will work, but the shift to stability over GDP is
not a sign of weakness... It's exactly what western observers and doomsayers
for years have been asking for. China's permabears will keep complaining, of
course, as is their right, but that doesn't change facts on the ground.

------
liberte82
Unrelated, but I'm always amazed when I hear about these massive Chinese
cities for the first time. Apparently Urumqi has a population of 3.5 million.

~~~
antishatter
Recently went to Xian which locals had described to be as being more of a
small village feel. A mere 8m population.

~~~
thinkpad20
Xian at least has thousands of years of history. On the bullet train in China
you’ll often pass by cities of millions of people which might have been mere
hamlets a generation or two ago. The size of China, its economic renaissance
and the fact that good jobs in China are almost exclusively found in urban
areas has led to a vast migration towards city centers which is pretty much
unprecedented in human history.

~~~
nerfhammer
It's almost as if growing cities are economic growth multipliers and perhaps
even a key part of that whole civilization thing.

Meanwhile over here it's taken as assumed that cities cannot and/or _should
not_ grow ever again.

~~~
thinkpad20
> Meanwhile over here it's taken as assumed that cities cannot and/or should
> not grow ever again.

How do you mean?

~~~
testvox
Probably referring to the hatred many in the United States have towards urban
development. In pretty much every city in the United States development has
been slowed to a crawl due to zoning restrictions, despite increasing huge
demand. People love to use SF as a prime example but I will point to my city,
Somerville MA where rents have been soaring, yet there are only 22 lots that
meet the residential zoning requirements. All other lots are over the density
requirement. So practically any future development has to decrease the number
of people who can live in the city, rather then increase it.
[http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-
somerville/](http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/)

~~~
thinkpad20
That is weird, and saddening. As a lifelong city dweller (primarily Chicago) I
love the character, chaos, and depth of dense cities. Visiting some of the big
cities in China, I was really taken with their bustling nature, the crowded
street markets, the densely packed housing, and the diverse architecture. They
seem to me so much more "alive" than the sprawling, strip-mall-filled
anonymity of many American cities. I had chalked it up to American's desire
for personal space, proliferation of cars and scarcity of public transit
options. But I hadn't really considered the effects of zoning and other legal
restrictions.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
When people rhapsodize about the aesthetic appeal of densely packed cities, I
always wonder how that translates into quality of life for the majority of
residents, especially those below the poverty line.

~~~
thinkpad20
Poverty exists within cities and without. I’m not sure how suburban sprawl is
helpful to those in poverty.

~~~
nerfhammer
Maybe it doesn't cause poverty so much as it allows you to _see_ poverty, so
it's natural to assume that cities must have created it.

------
justicezyx
A side note: The terrorist attacks (what the CCP states) in Xinjiang was
rampant. Every years hundreds of innocent people were killed. And due to media
control, those reports seldom see publicity outside of small forums in the
first a few months following the events.

ps1: Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed
minorities, I have no comments. ps2: This not a defend. Merely suggest one of
the motivating factors. Whether or not CCP intentionally let that happen so
they can do this, I have no comments.

~~~
bilbo0s
"...Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed
minorities, I have no comments...."

???

If "...oppressed minorities..." commit acts wherein "...hundreds of innocent
people were killed..."

aren't they "terrorists"?

Or am I thinking about this whole thing wrong?

~~~
thinkpad20
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think the parent post
simply meant that they were not passing judgment on the justification of the
violence.

~~~
whooshee
If those attackers attacked police or gov't, they may call themselves a
freedom figher. But If a guy randomly kills innocent people to show their
agendas, he is definitely a terrorist, which was what happened in Xinjiang and
other cities in China by some terrorist groups. Unfortunately, there was some
western press quoted terrorist when they were covering those attacks.

------
chvid
What the article is forgetting is the severity of the conflict with its potent
mix of race, religion and by-gone nationality.

To me the parallels to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are the conflicts involving the
Rohingyas in Myanmar, the "deep south" in Thailand, and maybe the "pirates"
around Malaysia and Philippines.

These conflicts are all being handled with far heavier hand than what China is
doing in Xinjiang.

------
gugudollz
There has never been internet shutdown in Kenya. TV stations were switched off
but never internet.

If China establishes autocratic regimes in the global South it will seize
those governments and leverage that to gain power over the West. It's myopic
to think their goal is anything less than absolute domination of the world.

~~~
Barrin92
It's probably safe to assume that China wants to increase its influence, but
accusing any country of plans of 'absolute domination' based on domestic
surveillance probably says more about the psyche of the accuser than anyone
else

~~~
woodandsteel
Where would you say China is trying to go in the long-term, internationally? I
get the impression it wants to be the global hegemon, but perhaps I am wrong.

~~~
nickik
Based on what? What has China done in the last 40 years that would even close
to imply that?

There is still a part of China that is not even controlled by China (Taiwan).
They are surrounded by lots of other powerful countries, Russia, India, Japan
and so on. The US military is driving around right in front of them.

They are getting accused of wanting global hegemony based on thing like
building bases in the South China Sea. Something that other countries have
done before China.

Seems to me if anything China has behaved incredibly passive. Maybe in the
back of their minds they have the idea that this strategy will lead to some
kind of soft hegemony but that is just speculation based on nothing.

------
ChoGGi
If an oppressive government can shut down internet access whenever they want,
then it seems the real problem is losing paper news to digital.

I'd say a decentralized mesh network is a step in the right direction, but if
there's spyware on all the phones; that doesn't help as much.

------
Cw67NTN8F
I am sure Dept X has plans ready, just waiting for the opportune moment to
implement it in USA. To protect the children or something...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-
plate_recogni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-
plate_recognition#United_States)

 _Mobile ANPR is becoming a significant component of municipal predictive
policing strategies and intelligence gathering, as well as for recovery of
stolen vehicles, identification of wanted felons, and revenue collection from
individuals who are delinquent on city or state taxes or fines, or monitoring
for "Amber Alerts". With the widespread implementation of this technology,
many U.S. states now issue misdemeanor citations of up to $500 when a license
plate is identified as expired or on the incorrect vehicle. Successfully
recognized plates may be matched against databases including "wanted person",
"protection order", missing person, gang member, known and suspected
terrorist, supervised release, immigration violator, and National Sex Offender
lists. In addition to the real-time processing of license plate numbers, ANPR
systems in the US collect (and can indefinitely store) data from each license
plate capture. Images, dates, times and GPS coordinates can be stockpiled and
can help place a suspect at a scene, aid in witness identification, pattern
recognition or the tracking of individuals._

------
EGreg
You guys may be concerned about China today. However, in the long run, with AI
the humans are building a zoo for themselves.

When machines are able to complete every task better, win every strategic
confrontation, and so on, there will not be any point for humans to make any
significant contributions - including art. Even video and audio will be faked
easily.

When their every move can be scrutinized and next moves easily predicted, they
can be easily caged and controlled. Raised to go along with anything, because
"resistance is futile".

The world is being turned into monocultures and farms. And humans are building
a zoo for themselves. No one will really run the place in the end.

~~~
emanreus
To add to the irony, we are the ones doing it.

------
devwinportable
China's quite notorious for sending back North Korean defectors (and
cooperating with NK spy agencies for this)

this isn't going well...

------
toephu2
On the plus side, I just visited China last month and never felt safer. Before
you would wear your backpack on the front of your chest when taking public
transportation for fear of thieves. Now, with surveillance everywhere (and
random ID checks at subways), you can freely wear your backpack on your back
where it belongs without fear of theft.

~~~
keiferski
There are plenty of western “free countries” with little-to-no street crime.
It’s not an either-or situation.

~~~
SN76477
I have been thinking lately about the purpose of crime. Obviously people get
robbed and bad things happen, but what would happen in a society without
crime? is it possible that crime has a larger purpose?

~~~
45h34jh53k4j
stagnation. without risk there is no progress.

~~~
SN76477
would you say that without crime humans would be complacent?

------
Synaesthesia
What nobody wants is crushing poverty like in India, and Africa. I'm sure
those peasants would consider life in China to be wonderful.

------
dandare
Without pointing a finger, I will say I would be really surprised if this
discussion - and HN in general - was not subject to a discourse control by
paid state agents (sophisticated trolls) from China and elsewhere. Assuming
that it is, what can we learn or do to miting such influences? Asking for
independent source to all claims is obviously the first step.

~~~
westiseast
So I've been in trouble on HN (probably rightly so) once before for pointing
the finger. With that in mind...

The problem is that 'their' only objective is to undermine 'our' goal of
having a balanced, honest discussion that arrives at some kind of valid,
valuable truth. If a troll or discourse control agent can undermine that
process, then they've 'won'.

And it's pretty easy to do. Actually, demanding sources is a great tool for
undermining absolutely _any_ discussion you like.

Someone claims something you don't like? Demand evidence/sources. If they
can't produce them, you've won. If they can produce them, call into question
the bias or veracity of the sources. You win again.

The basic tools of the troll trade are well known - derail, distract, discuss
to death. Question motives and bias, use whataboutism, sling mud, lead a
discussion into the long grass, debate every single point to death, ad hominem
attacks, play the victim...

I think communities perhaps need to become more aware of those discussion
patterns and vote according to whether something is using troll tools, rather
than whether you agree/disagree.

~~~
akvadrako
I wish we had troll armies going around demanding sources everywhere. That
would greatly elevate the level of discussion on most forums. If you don't
have unbiased scientific sources to backup your claim, I don't see how you
will convince me your ideas have merit.

~~~
westiseast
In an ideal world, sources are great, but there’s a bunch of practical
problems with the idea that _everything, anyone_ says online should have some
sort of attribution:

* How do I attach sources for my opinions or logical/moral arguments?

* I could spend an hour collating sources and writing a solid, reference based comment. A troll could destroy me in seconds with zero effort by claiming my sources are CIA funded or inherently biased.

* The internet has sources for anything you want to believe. I could easily google a bunch of authoritative looking sources confirming Flat Earth Theory, and then how will you refute them? Spend another hour discrediting those sources? And then what? I write a quick comment about how you’re obviously biased because of your media bubble.

Remember a troll doesn’t need to _win_ the argument - he just needs to (a)
cast enough shade so that an observer feels like maybe it’s subjective and
neither viewpoint is correct, and (b) make you feel like it’s not worth the
effort and hassle to argue with these morons.

If I (a troll) can write two x 1 minute comments that cause you to waste 2
hours of your time proving nothing, I’ve won.

------
gcb0
most people doesn't recognise that this is the "I don't have anything to
hide"-folks wetest dream.

this kind of article is just free advertisement for the companies selling this
crap.

even here, the top comment now is about how someone never felt safer in China,
probably because they " have nothing to hide"

------
logicallee
This seems as good an article as any to ask: in people's opinion here, is
there any risk for Americans going to China and continuing normal Internet
browsing activities? (I know the following is not the best attitude, but I
really do mean on a "nothing to hide" basis.)

Someone in this thread mentioned $4.7 billion (quoted as 30B RMB in this
thread) on the security and surveillance, for just Xinjiang, which has a
population of 21m give or take, out of China's 1.37 billion people. That's
obviously a lot of money (for comparison the entire US intelligence budget is
maybe an order of magnitude higher annually), so I'd assume that when in
China, and maybe outside of it, basically whatever you do can/could be
monitored.

I get the impression that if you're not, I don't know, doing detailed
dissident planning it's not an issue, so this would seem the same standard as
pretty free Americans would expect. In America, yeah if you spend 18 months
downloading textbooks on bombmaking, buying laboratory equipment on Amazon,
and then eventually industrial sizes of fertilizer, ammonia, and remote
demolition detonators on Ali Express, while getting hundreds of thousands of
dollars in bitcoin from seling a 1-page haircut ebook which has 1 review
stating it was useless, while you spend most of your time travelling between
Syria and Washington DC, where you're at home on the dark net all day over
tor, reading arabic language anti-American calls for terrorism and jihad, you
would _expect_ to get a visit at some point between when you start that
journey and when you're on skype bidding your mother back home goodbye, saying
that you will die for a worthy cause in your Jihad against the U.S.
imperialist pigs and asking for her bank account information. I mean sure
everything I've just stated (literally the entirety of this paragraph) falls
under freedom of expression, freedom of thinking, and freedom of commerce, but
as a practical matter you'd expect to be stopped at some point.

So is that the standard? If I go to Beijing but I'm not spending eighteen
months travelling between Beijing and Taiwan reading about how to arm rebels
for a military coup, how to get what you want by taking political hostages,
and taking geographic survey equipment across the street from state buildings
in Beijing with a notebook and a "Insurrection for Dummies: How to lead an
armed rebellion and communicate with your followers while toppling Beijing's
military hegemony" book, as an American could I expect to continue my normal
Internet browsing (including reading or posting about "sensitive topics" or
whatever)?

I mean on an everyday basis. Note that my Chinese example didn't include
purchasing fertilizer and detonators, so I get that the standard could be a
bit lower - but does normal American online behavior count? Or would an
American not be able to enjoy their usual online freedom without getting lots
of problems?

------
logfromblammo
<deleted>

~~~
dylz
It very clearly sets it to display = block the line after, if you ran a normal
browser.

~~~
eat_veggies
While logfromblammo's response is kind of immature (and this probably isn't
the right thread to voice that concern in), I sort of agree. It sets it to
display: block in javascript, meaning the page is unusable if you're blocking
scripts for performance/tracking reasons.

I tested the page with javascript disabled and manually set the html element
back to display: block and it renders just fine.

------
normayzer
CCP: Chinese citizens are ready for democracy!

------
powerapple
1) There was no hijab in Xinjiang before and now it is very common. 2) DARPA
has many research grants on ughyur language.

------
zachguo
Xinjiang is under surveillance for a reason. They have blown up buses and
killed thousands. Crime rate among Uyghurs community is also much higher.

~~~
wyuenho
That's called a rebellion, and it's rebellion for a very simple reason -
cultural genocide by the CCP.

~~~
zachguo
so I guess you are happy about terrorists killing your families for a 'holy
sacrifice'?

~~~
wyuenho
I don't know how you can jump from stating an observation to conclude how I
feel about it. I'm merely stating a natural course of human affairs.

To answer your question, I'm not happy to see any violence, but as someone who
has some humility, and pragmatism, I don't see how more oppression can solve
the problem of violence. For the Uyghurs, they view what they do as self
defense, just like the Chinese, is self defense wrong? Some would argue only
if the force used is not proportional to the offense sustained. For over a
century, Chinese of various factions have invaded and massacred tens of
thousands of Uyghurs in the region under different pretexts, what exactly can
you expect from an ethnic group fighting for their very own survival?

------
risent
Freedom is not free. The majority of world are like peace, but the minority
can break it with terrorist attacks. To prevent the attacks, the majority will
pay a huge price.

In the other way, the minority's attacks will create Nationalism in the
majority, and this will make the attacks more worse.

Is there any way to resolve this?

~~~
andrepd
This is a false dillema. Show me any evidence that massive surveillance
increases security.

There are many things that increase peace and security: wealth, education,
good institutions/political systems, arguably culture, etc. Surveillance is
probably not one of them.

~~~
risent
I agree with your opinion. But the problem is that: every option in your
comment is a long term policy, it can't resolve the current problem in the
reality as quick as possible.

------
soueuls
I have personally lived long term both in the US and China (I am French)

And I would choose China to raise my kids over the US any days. Yes there are
repression in China, it would be a lie to deny it, yes I have been around a
girl who smoked weed, she was 28-30 years old and she literally had to hide
behind a car because it's completely forbidden, highly punished and another
citizen can report you.

But China has many advantages, public services are awesome. Unlike France and
the US, the government is corrupt but they don't vote any law against Chinese
themselves. It's a country which still have some kind of moral traditions and
values so far.

And last but not least I prefer government's surveillance than people's
surveillance. It's far more easier to free think in China than it is in the US
and France. The latter countries are closer to the sesame credit than the
latter.

~~~
taway483
As a French citizen, that's a very big risk to take. I speak from experience
when I say one tiny mistake (that would be a non-issue in most Western
countries) is all it takes to get kicked out of the country, after which
they'll deny your Visa for years with no obligation to tell you why. It
doesn't matter if you own a house in China, it doesn't matter if you've
invested hundreds of thousands/millions throughout your stay there, it doesn't
matter if you lived there for 10 years without a problem, it doesn't matter if
you're a month away from graduating from Tsinghua/Beida, etc. If you've been
to China before then you've probably already broken the law in many different
ways, such as not going to the local police station whenever you stayed at a
hotel/switched apartment/stayed at your friends/partners place, etc. In other
words, settling down and investing a lot of money into a life in China is a
disaster waiting to happen.

~~~
andrewcchen
> not going to the local police station whenever you stayed at a
> hotel/switched apartment/stayed at your friends/partners place

I've never heard of this and I grew up in China. Can you provide a source?

~~~
mostlystatic
I think it applies only to foreigners. [http://lawandborder.com/temporary-
residence-registration-for...](http://lawandborder.com/temporary-residence-
registration-for-foreign-nationals/)

Normally the hotel does it for you.

After getting an apartment here I didn't register for about a month. I had to
spend some time at the registry office to get a warning. They said if it
happens again there'll be a fine, and if it happens a third time you
presumably have to leave the country.

On your arrival/departure form it also says:

"Aliens who do not lodge at hotels, guesthouses or inns shall, within 24 hours
(72 hours in rural areas) of entry, go through accomodation registration at
local police station.

------
PricelessValue
> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to
scaremonger with "china".

The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and
conservatives in the US want it.

The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in
britain. It's in the US.

Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

~~~
bob_theslob646
>The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in
britain. It's in the US

How do you even measure that? I have no idea what you're are saying means?

~~~
chaostheory
With the UK, this is already well known. They have about a camera per 14
people give or take. Post 9-11, in the US it's also spread. Typically it's in
really crime-ridden areas where law and order is barely sustainable (yes these
exist). The only one I can't comment much on is Russia. Given that they
essentially have a dictatorship, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a big
program as well.

imo the state of the art surveillance isn't in China. It's either in the
Middle East (especially in Dubai) or Singapore.

This happened a few years back: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-
eye-for-an-eye-...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/an-eye-for-an-
eye-the-anatomy-of-mossad-s-dubai-operation-a-739908.html)

(I used to work in the video imaging industry.)

The OP of this thread is missing the point of the article though. They can
call themselves Liberals, Conservatives, Communist Party Members, Nationalists
or whatever, but only the elites want mass surveillance and really no one else

~~~
namelost
On the plus side, there is no law against face coverings in the UK. You can
legally walk along the street wearing a guy falkes mask, motorcycle helmet or
niqab. Nor is there any requirement to carry ID.

~~~
brokenmachine
Thank god for that. I can wear my spiderman costume. How lovely to live in
such a free country!! /s

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
How much do you want to bet that a lot of these technologies are built on open
source software? If it was a company that was licensing software to them,
there would be someone to hold accountable, but with open source, you just
make and release something and it is not your problem who uses it for what.

~~~
toomanybeersies
This is the most bizarre argument against OSS that I've ever read.

