
Hong Kong’s protesters use AirDrop to spread information to mainland visitors - ryan_j_naughton
https://qz.com/1660460/hong-kong-protesters-use-airdrop-to-breach-chinas-firewall/
======
freedomben
Worth mentioning in case anyone in HongKong or China needs it: Streisand can
help you set up a VPN to avoid censoring[1]

[https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand](https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand)

~~~
umvi
Isn't naming an anti censorship tool "streisand" similar to naming an anti-
facism tool "hitler"?

~~~
filoleg
Not really. Streisand Effect is defined as "a phenomenon whereby an attempt to
hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence
of publicizing the information more widely."[0], so it seems to fit perfectly

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

~~~
umvi
Sure. And the "Hitler Effect" is defined as "a phenomenon whereby an attempt
to create a genocidal fascist government has the unintended consequence of
uniting nations of the earth committed to the destruction of said government"

I was just pointing out the irony that an anti-censorship tool was named after
a pro-censorship person

------
scilro
This reminds me of people who say that we can free North Koreans by
(physically) airdropping tapes and books on Pyongyang - surely the only reason
they support their government is because they're heavily censored, once they
see the truth they'll rise up in arms!

It's a narrative that's somewhat condescending. It makes it seem like all
these people are just being held hostage by their governments. The reality is
that people in China or North Korea are like people everywhere else -- either
they're deeply uninterested in politics, or they are, in which case they
probably have a more sophisticated view of these issues than assumed. Some
information freely available via VPN isn't going to change anyone's mind.

~~~
duguxu
Most protesters never try to investigate the real thoughts of ordinary
mainland people, who are just regarded as a stereotype of ignorance,
impoliteness, nouveau riche, and pathetically waiting to be enlightened.
Protesters know mainland people as little as, if not less than, ordinary
mainland people know them. This is not a big deal in daily life, but could
severely diminish the effect of the propaganda towards mainland visitors.

~~~
rlue
This comment is based on the peculiar notions that 1) it is possible to
intimately understand the thoughts of over a billion people and 2) this
understanding is necessary for propaganda to achieve its effect.

More importantly, it quietly dismisses the vast moral chasm between the CCP's
propaganda and that of the protesters. One aims to restrict information (and
spread misinformation) to advance the control of a state over its people,
while the other aims to expose that restricted information to protect civil
liberties.

~~~
duguxu
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is a political movement aiming at winning more
support and allies from people of mainland China, and hence putting more
pressure on the government. My comment just points out there are some negative
factors for current organizers. They could have done better.

Information freedom is politically correct, but that doesn't mean tactics or
investigation isn't important before conveying information to certain group of
people to achieve a political goal practically.

Btw, CCP puts great stress on these two peculiar notions. Propaganda appears
far more than restriction and misinformation.

~~~
tempguy9999
> They [the current organizers]could have done better

Interesting. Very specifically, how?

~~~
duguxu
Some opinions of mine. Any criticism is welcome:

A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting
for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as
defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred
to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in
mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a
sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you
know? oops, sorry for you".

I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better
explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's
perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under
the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is
regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens.
"Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many
flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary
people.

Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much
as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with
each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about
the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some
concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible
as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building
of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.

As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong
governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed
until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s. There were
also multiple bloody riots crushed in the colonial history. It's really
confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British
flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides
asking for Britain's direct interference.

Lastly, truth is powerful enough. There is no need to exaggerate the numbers.

~~~
hker
Thanks for voicing out your view, very much appreciated.

> A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting
> for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as
> defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred
> to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in
> mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a
> sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you
> know? oops, sorry for you".

I think the version of the opposition as presented by the Chinese media is not
the full picture.

Case in point: even though the court of Hong Kong would be involved in the
extradition, they could only examine _prima facie_ evidence, a much lower bar
than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After all, Hong Kong does not have a near
100% conviction rate, showing the huge gap between going to court ( _prima
facie_ ) and conviction (guilty beyond reasonable doubt).

And the _superiority_ in legal system in Hong Kong with respect to China is
the independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution (for those who know,
see 零八宪章 Charter 08 manifesto on constitution and 709大抓捕 709 crackdown), so
that the law does not serve politics. Arguably, if and when China catch up on
these two aspects, the opposition in Hong Kong would be much smaller.

> I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better
> explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's
> perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under
> the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is
> regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens.
> "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many
> flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary
> people.

For those who want a more thorough explanation, see the article by Leung Kai
Chi (in Chinese [1], a rough translation in [2]). This article likely does not
fit into a leaflet, but thanks for suggesting to use this version for open-
minded mainland people instead.

[1]:
[https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/反送中答問集-9841974d889c](https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/反送中答問集-9841974d889c)

[2]: [https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR](https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR)

> Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much
> as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree
> with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a
> little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to
> dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people
> sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone
> storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with
> bricks.

Concerning stability, Hong Kongers are arguing that a proper legal system
(independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution) and accountable
democracy are the key to long term stability, and are one key issue underlying
this protest.

Relatedly, note that storming local government and attacking police with
bricks in protests also happen in China (and they sometimes turn cars over and
set fire), but those do not get much media attention and are often censored
(search for 群体抗暴事件). If mainland people do worry about such stability, those
mass protests in China shows that what China is doing is not enough, and a
better legal and political system is the key.

> As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong
> governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy
> existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s.

Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by
Beijing [3]. Again, those “wellknown” as presented by Chinese media is not the
full picture. These AirDrops are trying to counter the disinformation and
censorship.

[3]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-
pu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-
hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html)

> It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of
> colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these
> flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.

Don’t know if it is related to the flag, but after the 1 July protest Britain
just defended the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration concerning the autonomy
of Hong Kong from Beijing’s influence [4]. It is hard to fit so much context
into a small leaflet.

[4]:
[https://www.ft.com/content/429886f4-9cd1-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe...](https://www.ft.com/content/429886f4-9cd1-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb)

~~~
duguxu
Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China,
especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned
more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not
the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or
their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts.
That's my core point.

> They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty
> beyond reasonable doubt.

How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this
issue?

I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical
system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make
Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful
to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.

> a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term
> stability

Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more
support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to
explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares.
For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.

>Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by
Beijing

Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's
pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is,
according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and
democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for
independence.

~~~
tempguy9999
> Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's
> pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan

The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-
pu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-
hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html) specifically says this

"But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest
that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong
repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts
in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing"

Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm
not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that
time)

Also in your original post you said

> Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as
> stressing only on order towards protesters

This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the
ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the
constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem
to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by
that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm
reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.

~~~
duguxu
> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't?

I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there
was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and
pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me
to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s
pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc
and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s
well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s
after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two
periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.

It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think
most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just
respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with
political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no
compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy
to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.

~~~
tempguy9999
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is
> misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd
followed the link you'd have seen this

"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern
themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in
1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong
Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take
positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated”
if the Brits allowed self-governance:"

and also the original typewritten docs [https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-
history-of-hong-kongs-still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-
hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/) faded but readable.

> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions

It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're
saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.

> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland

As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know
more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had
sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found
nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).

~~~
duguxu
> OK, so you accept it but reject it.

I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed
turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon
become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed
it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in
the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.

The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_\(Hong_Kong\))
. Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading
to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying
to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in
history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better
light of democracy as some protesters might think.

> I still don't

Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through
radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and
"order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some
talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it
is absolutely good.

> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had
> sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.

My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see
[https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html](https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html)

~~~
tempguy9999
> I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a
> self-governed Dominion

It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy.
Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't
until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to
invade!

I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks.

> It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side

You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did.
I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

> the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light
> of democracy as some protesters might think

Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I
literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is
infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not
criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean.

> But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about
> riots and "order" is about crush for other people

Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and
propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very
carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not
tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to
images of that were real dismay and shock.

And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of
stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the
individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is
quite another matter.

So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a
very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial
stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand
where we unite, and divide.

> My mistake, it's not just sanction...

From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by
invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of
countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same
thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any
means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo
and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it.
Point taken.

~~~
duguxu
Sorry for my bad English! I will try my best to explain everything you don't
understand although I can't promise I could make it. First of all, I have been
concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda. Whether you like or
not, these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted. Please pay
attention to tell apart the discussion of tactics of propaganda from my
personal political view.

> It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy.
> Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

Read the first image of [https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-
kongs-still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-
stillborn-democracy/)

> You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually
> did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

Read the Young plan.

> Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I
> literally don't understand what you're saying.

Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many
mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy,
abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like
limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I
can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic
experiment.

> But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded
> rioting or other destructive behaviour.

I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many
other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference
between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some
propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning
clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their
heart is good, that's all.

> From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by
> invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of
> countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same
> thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any
> means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows
Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was
strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and
push Britain's policy.

~~~
tempguy9999
You have nothing to apologise for in your english, don't worry.

OK, let me read your links and I'll get back to you.

thanks for your patience

------
kccqzy
I still don't understand why the use of AirDrop is necessary. These Chinese
tourists have already crossed into Hong Kong, a land that currently enjoys
freedom of speech. Why aren't traditional methods like banners or brochures or
flyers be distributed to tourists from the mainland? Is AirDrop faster and
more effective?

~~~
ximeng
Not everyone picks up fliers. They're also not anonymous.

------
orblivion
What about airdropping across the river to Shenzhen? For that matter, what
about setting up Gotennas for some communication?

~~~
shane369
No need. Shenzhen is probably the most VPN'ed city in China. Most of
companies/universities have VPN connection(like the one i am using now...)

~~~
orblivion
I was reading on Hacker News several years ago that the Chinese government was
slowly winning the war on the VPNs. What's the story lately?

~~~
sersi
While it's purely anecdotical, in my experience vpns are blocked differently
depending on where you are. It seems that vpns always work better in
Shenzhen...

~~~
orblivion
Maybe they figure people closer to HK are more aware of what goes on on the
outside anyway, so they don't put in the effort to block?

------
Lucadg
This is fascinating and scary at the same time. As we slide in a surveillance
global system too busy to notice, Hong Kong is showing us the possible future
of Western societies. Maybe time to cancel extradition agreements with the US?

~~~
tempguy9999
The only way to change things is to fight back legally. I've done so and if
I'm pretty much the only one to bother the government or the press then
nothing will happen.

My absolute frustration, and reason I'm close to giving up, is I see people
posting warning of bad things to come, politically, ecologically, technically,
but they do nothing. One person alone usually can't change much. A few _can_
but even getting a few to do anything is nearly impossible. If everyone just
wrote a single letter a year to their mp/representative/whatever, even just
phoned up a business about excessive packaging, things would start to move.

It's in your hands basically.

------
wyc
is there any open source alternative to firechat
([https://www.opengarden.com/firechat/](https://www.opengarden.com/firechat/)),
which seems to now require internet account creation prior to use?

something imbued with cryptography that communicates purely via local peer
discovery/hopping such as wifi/bluetooth/optical signaling, etc.

~~~
lukewrites
This is one of the edge cases that makes me dislike Apple's walled garden. The
Chinese gvt can simply request that Apple remove firechat and other
decentralized chat apps from the App Store and that's that.

------
baybal2
I remember getting bluetooth spam in Chinese malls like 10 years ago.

Used to be near impossible to walk around with bluetooth on, then the
popularity of Android and Iphone (both of which don't support obex or obex
ftp) quickly drove popularity of spam devices to nil

~~~
baybal2
I knew a Panasonic guy who worked in Shenzhen. He worked on their Android
phones.

I recall he was complaining how Google was vehemently opposed to any kind of
"mainlining" IrDA support in Android. He says that Google was ok to support a
semistandard API for IrDA just for the Japanese market under agreement that
Panasonic would not market such phones outside Japan.

Panasonic laobans scratched their heads for a minute, and sput on that
request, deciding to move with their own, self supported APIs.

~~~
layoutIfNeeded
And why did Google oppose it?

~~~
baybal2
That's a mystery. Maybe because of the same reason they axed obex

------
clubm8
I see several people discussing VPNs in the comments, but I'm surprised no one
is mentioning Tor. Is Tor identified and blocked reliably by the great
firewall, even with bridges?

(The Tor UI claims meek-azure works in China, is this not accurate?)

~~~
Kliment
Tor is identified and blocked reliably, whether using bridges, relays, or
anything else.

------
moonhorse
The reality is that mainlanders want prosperity and stability over democracy.
Unless protesters could prove there is a better way to bring prosperity, the
propaganda efforts would be futile. It is not 1980s any more.

VPN would not help. I learnt about what happened to Tiananmen Square, but I
also learnt there is CIA agents behind a lot of these incidences. Real world
is complicated. Politics is pragmatic.

I do hope different countries could put their trifles aside and focus on the
big picture as a specie. But it will be a long way. Too much pride, too much
at stake. Power struggle is too deep in our genes.

~~~
Arn_Thor
Would millions of minority citizens interned in "re-education" camps count as
"trifles" in your estimation? Because a lot of people internationally are not
fans of that, and it's hardly a matter of pride or power struggle. It's an
authoritarian government mistreating its citizens without due cause. That's
exactly what HK people are trying to prevent happening to them...

The old guard, many immigrated from the mainland, strive to one day
democratize China. Hong Kong's youngsters say "screw that, let them keep their
dictatorship, we just want to be left alone with the freedoms we've got"

~~~
moonhorse
I fully understand your hatred towards the Chinese government.

I want to point out what I believe is the root cause. It has nothing to do
with communism. Chinese has a deep rooted culture of long range thinking
(think "Sun Tzu"). It has always been willing to sacrifice piece for the
whole, sacrifice short term for the long term. We read those historical
stories as we grow up. It is very scary at times, especially when you end up
at the wrong side of the table and you are being sacrificed. This moral code
probably is very different from yours. From your perspective, what happens in
Xinjiang is severe violation of human rights; from those top guys'
perspective, this is sacrificing the freedom of a minority for the stability
and prosperity of a whole people. I am not saying I approve this policy as I
certainly do not want to be those interned. And you might argue that this
"long range thinking" is really servicing communism party's self interest. But
your response demonstrates that the chasm is deep. And the chasm is on a
cultural level and wont bridge easily.

What this trade war scares me the most is also related with this chasm - it is
just so hard to transcend cultures and reach slightest bit of mutual
understanding. For a while west thinks China could turn, but now it is really
starting to realize there is fundamental difference. It is very scary to me.
Like most people on this forum, I do not want to see any escalation in any
form of conflict. I just want a peaceful globe and we could continue do our
thing that occasionally crosses border.

And speaking of this Hong Kong protest, many Hong Kong friends disapprove it.
I read WSj every day and there is no mentioning of what a normal Hong Kong
resident think of it. In the end, what do you expect a 18 year old high school
protester to understand in regards to what "democracy" mean? At that age, we
easily aggrandize our self-righteousness and self-importance and are easily
influenced. It is a matter of age. I think fundamentally what is driving such
grievance is that Hong Kong is no longer as important as before. And younger
generation see no hope. But this is simply inevitable capitalistic evolution.
Smart young Hong Kong natives are now looking for opportunities in Beijing.
This is the future and we have to embrace it.

~~~
Arn_Thor
Your dismissal of the protesters is so arrogant I'm struggling to think of a
cogent response.

I've seen the argument by mainlanders often that these protests "don't
represent the opinion of the people". You know what would reveal the opinion
of the people? Universal suffrage and free choice of legco candidates, or
Legco elections where the people could vote in a true majority (i.e.
abolishing functional constituencies). Until then the only way people can make
their voices heard is protest. And with two million on the street a few weeks
ago, an unprecedented turnout as a share of population for any kind of protest
anywhere in the world the opinion of "normal Hong Kong residents" is clear.
But again, want to find out for real? Democratize HK and find out. But we all
know what the result would be, including Beijing.

While a majority don't actively support storming LegCo or clashing with
police, the majority definitely are against the extradition bill and further
mainland encroachment, and they empathize with the protesters' intentions.
That is abundantly clear.

Hong Kong is separated from China by a long period with a different value
system. While mainlanders might be happy to sacrifice the minority (the
"others") for stability—a preference well explained by turbulent Chinese
history—the people of Hong Kong most firmly don't. And never will.

I don't hate the Chinese government, although I despise many of those in power
there. Overall it's done well in modernizing the country and bringing people
out of poverty. And they have done so in part by restricting civil liberties,
some might say it's worth it. But interning millions of people or denying due
process to dissidents is a red line for me. I cannot accept any justification
for that.

------
burtonator
btw.. maybe this is a solution to the firewall... Just create a super cheap
wifi device that has 64-256GB of storage and you can leave it 'open' so that
people could use it as file storage caches.

Maybe some sort of web of trust to validate things like binary file integrity
otherwise the state could inject malware.

~~~
xster
That just centralizes and adds more vulnerability to the person who bought the
device (vs something more ephemeral and software based where you have more
plausible deniability).

------
cronix
Curious if China will demand that feature be removed from the Chinese version
of iOS now.

~~~
gdfiutyer
I don’t think they will, but as a security concern, maybe have receiving
content set to “Contacts Only” by default.

------
carapace
In addition to fake news problem, real news problem.

------
yy77
airdrop is actually like a security hole when Apple set "open to everyone" by
default. There are already quite some cases using it to send __* photos as sex
harassment. Apple should set default to "only contacts".

~~~
neilalexander
I'm pretty sure it defaults to contacts-only by default. At least it did on my
devices bought in the UK.

------
burtonator
This is fascinating. I actually started writing a scifi novel about zombies
that had something similar called ripple. The state wasn't talking about the
outbreak but the videos spread through ripple and people were freaked out.

~~~
burtonator
Actually.. I was wrong. I called it 'Cast' and it was just a small part of the
book. I wrote it back in 2013 but never published it.

....

The government tried to prevent the mainstream media from showing the pictures
but with the Internet this was impossible.

At least until the Internet fell...

It was still all over Cast though. It was encrypted, onion routed, wireless,
and distributed. Cast eventually destroyed all the social networks like
Facebook and Twitter and left then in the dust like so many Friendsters.

Pictures and videos of small outbreaks spread over Cast like ripples in a vast
pond. Except these were more like information tsunamis. They just kept coming.

You would bump a video and send it to your friends only to find another video
a few moments later.

Something was happening and we all knew.

You don't expect the speed at first. You can't outrun them. My theory is that
the virus evolved to spread through accelerated replication. A long life is
not a problem so burning out the body isn't an issue.

When a virus first mutates into an effective form, and the host population is
extensive, it’s usually fatal.

The only goal of a virus is replication. If it kills the host but can
replicate faster then that’s the strategy that will be selected. Especially
when there are plenty of hosts.

And that was the problem with humanity. There are billions of people on the
Earth. Most of which live in the cities. None of which have any immunity to H.

Evolution is a bitch.

------
xster
I think they're all valid points worth debating but wrt this article's
framing, the contents of the AirDrop don't seem to have anything to do with
the Hong Kong protests. Infant milk powder, train ticket score etc could just
as well be in random Falun Gong pamphlets you get in Chinatowns abroad.

At this point, I'm not even sure the protest (communist black helicopters will
come pick you up to CCP black sites where you'll get waterboarded for
criticizing China) has anything to with the thing being protested (extradition
for crimes punishable under HK laws with 7+ years in prison (which criticizing
China hopefully is not)), but that's a different story.

~~~
lnanek2
Last article I read said the mainland had a 99% conviction rate. Anyone going
over there isn't getting a fair trial. They'll just be canned and counted as
some official's crime fighting spree no matter if they did it or not or
whatever political purpose their bodies can be put to.

~~~
yskchu
High conviction rate is not something unique to China - Canada and Japan are
also at 97% and 99% respectively

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

~~~
Engineering-MD
The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher than
that at 99.9% [1,2] and thought to be driven by political
interference/corruption rather than only targeting high yield cases. Bear in
mind the context of china’s top court rejecting the notion of an independent
judiciary [3], it is clear there is a difference between a high conviction
rate in these countries and China.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/03/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/03/11/china-scored-99-9-percent-conviction-rate-last-
year/?noredirect=on) [2]
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-
courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html) [3]
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/chinas-top-
cou...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/chinas-top-court-
rejects-judicial-independence-as-erroneous-thought)

~~~
yskchu
>The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher

Actually, it's not over 10 times higher; I double checked, Japan's is also
99.9% and has been for some time.

From:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan)

Statistics from Wikipedia link:
[http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.j...](http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.jpg)

If you just take guilty/not guilty, the % is actually 99.98% in Japan (e.g.
2011, 77 Not Guilty, 432,050 Guilty)

~~~
Engineering-MD
That’s interesting, thanks for the correction. That’s actually also
concerning. Either they are are prosecuting enough people, and letting
criminals go free, or the legal system is broken (or perhaps a huge cultural
difference I’m missing). What is the point in hiring a defence lawyer if the
chance of successful defence is so low? I can’t think of any test in my area
of expertise (medicine) that has such a high success rate, meaning that false
positives must be much too high for comfort.

------
olalonde
Seems like a click bait article, there's no China firewall in Hong Kong and
plenty of free Wifi spots.

~~~
dang
Ok, we've taken the firewall out of the title above.

~~~
lukewrites
"Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop" seems a drastic redaction. It would be
helpful to know _what_ they're using AirDrop for.

How about "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to spread their message to
Mainland tourists"? "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to inform tourists why
they protest"?

~~~
dang
Ok, we've added an extra phrase from the main text that conveys this.

~~~
lukewrites
Thanks, appreciate you taking the time! :)

------
Taniwha
Um, Hong Kong is OUTSIDE the Chinese firewall (for now)

More likely they are doing this to preserve anonymity

~~~
burkaman
This is about protesters subverting the purpose of the firewall, not a
technical loophole. Tourists from mainland China might not know about the
protests, because of the firewall. Protestors are using AirDrop to directly
deliver photos and information to the tourists, which is probably much more
effective than physical posters that people can ignore or rip down.

~~~
z2
Question--could a directional wifi antenna be used (plus amplification) to
AirDrop things from HK across the border into Shenzhen?

On that note, I stayed at an international hotel chain on the Shenzhen side's
border that had terribly slow but unfiltered internet. Google.com auto-
redirected to Google.hk. I always wondered if they used a VPN or maintained a
covert internet beam from across the river...

EDIT: Derp--another comment already posted this question.

~~~
dylz
If it's an international chain they likely have VPN set up at the edge, and
have licences allowing their VPN connection filed with the party

