Hong Kong Announces Ban On Masks, Face Paint That Helps Protesters Evade Facial Recognition (gizmodo.com) 171
The Hong Kong government is banning masks and face paint in an attempt to stop the pro-democracy protests that have been raging since June. "The new 'emergency' order was announced by Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam at a press conference today and will go into effect at midnight local time, 12:00 pm ET," reports Gizmodo. From the report: The new law bans "any facial covering that is likely to prevent identification," during public demonstrations. Anyone arrested under the new rule will face up to a year in prison and a fine of roughly $3,200 U.S. "We believe that the new law will create a new deterrence effect against masked violent protesters and rioters," Lam said at a press conference that was carried live online. "Hong Kong is not in a state of emergency," Lam assured citizens. "But we are indeed in a location of serious danger."
Hong Kong protesters, upset about Beijing's political incursion into the region, wear masks primarily for three reasons. First, protesters want to keep from being identified by cameras around the city that use facial recognition software. Second, the protesters don't want to be identified by police forces on the ground, allowing authorities to target them later when they arrive home. And third, the masks can shield protesters from teargas, which has become a common weapon deployed by police. Lam said at today's press conference that bans on face coverings were "something which has already been introduced in a number of jurisdictions around the world" and defended the move as something that could help to restore peace and order in the region. Lam notes that the new law is exempt for people who need to cover their faces for their jobs. What this means is that police will likely be allowed to wear masks, while the average civilian will not.
Hong Kong protesters, upset about Beijing's political incursion into the region, wear masks primarily for three reasons. First, protesters want to keep from being identified by cameras around the city that use facial recognition software. Second, the protesters don't want to be identified by police forces on the ground, allowing authorities to target them later when they arrive home. And third, the masks can shield protesters from teargas, which has become a common weapon deployed by police. Lam said at today's press conference that bans on face coverings were "something which has already been introduced in a number of jurisdictions around the world" and defended the move as something that could help to restore peace and order in the region. Lam notes that the new law is exempt for people who need to cover their faces for their jobs. What this means is that police will likely be allowed to wear masks, while the average civilian will not.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I have the solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Soon it will no longer be about HK; it will be about a global philosophy of liberty versus tyranny.
It already is.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked, it was more like Spy vs. Spy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't "worth" a damn?
And I agree with you: Beijing won't be willing to have a precedent set, whereby if a territory rebels for long enough they can gain freedom.
Also terrible is the stranglehold they have over mainland media; mainland residents have no idea what's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Beijing won't be willing to have a precedent set, whereby if a territory rebels for long enough they can gain freedom.
The extradition treaty has already been withdrawn, and was about extraditing a murder to Taiwan, not China. The protestors have no real goals or objectives, and no unifying ideology.
The CCP felt compelled to act in 1989 because they feared (with good reason) that the Tiananmen Square protests would spread to the rest of China, and it would be 1966 all over again. But there is no risk of that today, since the Hong Kong protestors have zero sympathy in the rest of China.
China can afford to be patient and let
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be 1966 all over again. If Tiananmen had succeeded, the CCP would have been first up against the wall. The thought even scared them more than their own shadows.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet she could not resist slipping in mainland China as a destination for extradition.
She did not "slip in" the PRC. Under HK law, Taiwan is an integral part of China. There is no legal basis for HK to legalize extradition to only one province without allowing it to all. Just like HK can't allow extradition to Hawaii without also allowing it to the rest of America. It is all or nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
No. While I would think that would be a great stalemate, that is clearly not the case. 'Leaving other countries alone' does not include insisting that no other nation recognize the independence of Taiwan. It does not include insisting on sticking your nose in every aspect of peoples lives. How is demanding your government pick the next Dalai Lama staying in your lane? How is demanding that the PRC decide who the grand masters of the 5 Taiji families staying in your lane? To what purpose could they possibly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not renouncing sovereignty over Taiwan is not the same as invading Taiwan.
They have never at any point had sovereignty over Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they have - before the communist revolution Taiwan was part of China.
No, before the communist revolution, China was part of Taiwan. Taiwan is the remanent of the original government which was overthrown by the PRC. The PRC at no point ever had control over Taiwan. Taiwan was the part of the revolution they didn't win.
Re: (Score:2)
insisting that no other nation recognize the independence of Taiwan.
No other country recognizes Taiwan's independence because Taiwan does not claim to be an independent country.
Taiwan's official policy is that there is one China, and they are the legitimate rulers. The only difference is that the PRC recognizes the independence of Mongolia, while Taiwan considers it to be an integral part of China (as it was during the Qing Empire). Otherwise, they both agree on the territorial integrity of China, including Daoyu/Senkaku, and the Nine-Dash Line.
Yes but Taiwan isn't expecting to rule mainland (Score:2)
whereas the PRC fully expects to rule Taiwan and very soon now.
Re: (Score:2)
whereas the PRC fully expects to rule Taiwan and very soon now.
Go watch the Omaha Beach scene in "Saving Private Ryan".
Then consider than China has less than 1% of the amphibious capability that the allies had on D-Day.
Also consider that 95% of German forces were deployed in places other than Normandy, while the ROC military is focused 100% on defending their homeland.
The PRC has no ability to takeover Taiwan in the foreseeable future.
Re: Yes but Taiwan isn't expecting to rule mainlan (Score:3)
Amphibious warfare is pretty much obsolete these days, with the only exception being guerilla tactics, which is the total opposite of what you're thinking of. If we had to storm Normandy today, cruise missiles would make a lot more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It would take at most five years for the PRC to create a helicopter fleet capable of landing a hundred thousand troops in Taiwan in a day. Add in a few hundred attack aircraft to take down air defences and Taiwan would be easily conquered.
China doesn't want to. The evidence is simple and obvious: They haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, the PRC is still working on 5 year plans. Free Chinese are anathema to the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
PRC to create a helicopter fleet capable of landing a hundred thousand troops in Taiwan in a day.
The Taiwanese military has 300,000 active and 2.8 million reservists.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! You mean it might take three fucking days to match the Taiwanese military on a man-for-man basis?
Except that it won't, because only 100,000 of those active military personnel are in the army; the rest are in the easily overwhelmed navy and air force.
Get a fucking clue. China has more tanks than Taiwan has military vehicles of any type. Two hours after taking a port with 50,000 helicopter landed soldiers China could be unloading 300 tanks an hour; by the end of the day they'd have more tanks in Taiwan
Re: (Score:2)
MOST countries recognised Taiwan as independent until China rose to prominence on the world stage.
Name one. What country recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country independent from mainland China?
What MOST countries recognized was Taiwanese sovereignty over ALL of China. They didn't abandon that recognition because of "trade relations", but because it was an absurd fantasy. Taiwan clearly does not exercise control over mainland China.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the general feeling of Jinping and the rest of his cronies is the Breshnev Doctrine: What's mine is mine and what's yours is open to discussion. Jinping needs to conquer Taiwan or risk going down in history as having smaller dick than Mao. He's only got a few 10s of millions of innocent people to whack before his tiny little penis can be portrayed as larger. No pictures those, its a state secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to being libertarian... we've got cookies at the back table, coffee to the left, and a complimentary 'don't tread on me' window decal.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily, "libertarian" could just mean that the tanks would be marked with a corporate logo instead of a national flag.
Re: (Score:3)
Sending tanks into Kowloon would result in two things
- many civilian deaths
- China needing new tanks
Have you been there? You'd need to kill several hundred thousand people before you could assure the safety of tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, Xi isn't going to do any favors for that orange idiot. They don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome of supporting his screwups.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not know it when I originally wrote that comment, but it turns out that is EXACTLY what Trump did.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But that gives the optics of another 1989 Tiananmen Square.
Time To Stop Buying Apple Prods? (Score:2)
Re:Time To Stop Buying Apple Prods? (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies don't care about human rights. Companies only care about profits. That's in their charter. Companies only pretend to care about human rights when their customers stop buying from them in protest and hurt their bottom line.
In short, YOU have the power to starve China by voting with your wallet. Not that you alone will make any difference though, since most everybody else don't give a flying fuck about principles as long as they can get their China-made gadgets on the cheap...
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't care about human rights. Companies only care about profits. That's in their charter.
And herein lies the problem. The board is legally obliged to consider delivering profit to share holders over all other concerns. We could change the laws to force companies to consider externalities and make corporations less Proprietary Limited however the big hole in that is companies are allowed to lobby government. So you *have* to make corporate lobbying of government illegal.
We can look to Hong Kong protesters to know what it is like to live in a democratic state and then have that suddenly, th
Re:Time To Stop Buying Apple Prods? (Score:5, Informative)
The board is legally obliged to consider delivering profit to share holders over all other concerns.
Nobody should believe this myth anymore, at least as it applies to the western markets. Unless shareholders can prove on behalf of the board that there has been fraud, significant waste, or illegality, a fiduciary duty challenge will fail.
US Supreme Court:
“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
Re: (Score:2)
The board is legally obliged to consider delivering profit to share holders over all other concerns.
Nobody should believe this myth anymore
Unless you can cite recent specific case law the 1919 Dodge vs Ford [harvard.edu] ruling that dictates shareholder profit must be consider above other concerns was recently upheld by a 2010 ruling Ebay vs Craigslist [harvard.edu]. You can read a summary in this New York Times article by by Stephen Bainbridge distinguished professor of law at U.C.L.A. School of Law.
I'm certain that certain elements of our corporate society would like you to believe that is a myth to ensure your complacency. Are you able to provide relevant case la
Re: (Score:2)
ruling that dictates shareholder profit must be consider above other concerns was recently upheld by a 2010 ruling Ebay vs Craigslist.
That's not even slightly what that case is about. It wasn't about whether in general an arbitrary shareholder can sue the company if they do not put profit above all else.
In this case craigslist diluted ebays shares effectively by simply making more shares and giving them to themselves (it's slightly more subtle, but that's the gist). That was ruled as breaching their fiducia
Re: (Score:2)
ruling that dictates shareholder profit must be consider above other concerns was recently upheld by a 2010 ruling Ebay vs Craigslist.
That's not even slightly what that case is about. It wasn't about whether in general an arbitrary shareholder can sue the company if they do not put profit above all else.
That maybe not what the case was about but the judge was clear in upholding the Ford vs Dodge case law with regard to the for profit purposes of a corporation. From the ruling itself [harvard.edu]:
Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. The "Inc." after the company name has to mean at least that. Thus, I cannot a
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very clear ruling from the court that for profit companies are for profit and the board is to behave as such.
Well no not precisely. From the ruling, same paragraph:
The corporate form in which craigslist operates, however, is not an appropriate vehicle for purely philanthropic ends, at least not when there are other stockholders interested in realizing a return on their investment.
You see my interpretation of the ruling especially in the context of the other paragraphs is that they specifically so
Re: (Score:2)
ruling that dictates shareholder profit must be consider above other
It does none of that. What it specifically does is allow the board and director to do what they want providing they do so in good faith. The primary case behind Dodge vs Ford was that Henry Ford was intentionally withholding and squandering investment with the express goal to limit the Dodge Brothers from accumulating wealth as he knew they intended to buy a rival car company and become a competitor.
That act was ruled illegal. The long opinions you linked to specifically call out that individual actions tak
Re: (Score:2)
ruling that dictates shareholder profit must be consider above other
That act was ruled illegal.
By what case law? 'm happy to update my point of view if you can provide the case law where it was ruled illegal. So far reply's have argued this is myth, or this or that and not provided relevant case law as I have. I think if you are going to say this about this very important matter please refer the case law where it was made illegal so I can see for myself.
Apologies for not including Professor Bainbridge's 2015 legal opinion on current case law [nytimes.com] in the previous post where he states:
Despite contr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The board is legally obliged to consider delivering profit to share holders over all other concerns.
Partially a myth. Yes, they must consider profits as a portion of their fiduciary duty, but only as one of many concerns rather than over all others.
Other concerns they are legally required to consider are the character of the company, the condition of the business, and the usual method similar corporations are managed. They are also supposed to take into account long term concerns and non-financial value such as goodwill.
While in several famous cases board members have been successfully sued because the
Re: (Score:2)
Plus of course, "Manufacturing in China will damage our brand, reducing future profits" immediately addresses the profit motive anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but its not the only source of cheap labor. Start with the less technical stuff. Africa is a shithole right now. They could definitely benefit from manufacturing. Even if it starts with making shit like pencils, start moving the manufacturing away. If you want to hurt china, start moving manufacturing to other countries with hurting economies that have low labor costs.
Re: (Score:2)
You just contradicted yourself. You say that one person has the power to starve China and then you admit that it would actually make zero difference. So which is it? I am a very very special snowflake. Does that mean that the $50/year I spend on Chinese products would be enough to sink China's economy? I guess the answer is yes because it isn't just any money. It is my money and no one is more special than this special snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
They could do it here. And they could still be profitable.
And the conditions "probably" wouldn't compel American children to through themselves off the roof.
But they wouldn't be "as" profitable.
If it makes you feel better (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
China's horrible human rights record is exactly the reason I've always been in favor of Trump's tariffs on China despite not being a Trump fan at all. Of course like anything he does he's fucking it up though by declaring trade wars against all of our allies at the exact same fucking time. Even if you start with the assumption that our allies have one over on us on trade this is stupid as collectively all of ours biggest problem is China. To further emphasize the point, what type of person picks a fight wit
Re: (Score:2)
If if you support screwing China, applying tariffs that American business must pay is just about par for the brain dead ideas of Trump. There's nothing up there but smashed potatoes and now he's stepping on his own crank.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, way to be brainwashed by Leftist entertainers (and I am generally a Leftist for the record). Rather than be forced to raise prices on their products manufacturers are already looking for other countries to manufacture their goods in. Samsung just stopped all manufacturing in China for example. Yes, there is hurt on our end while things realign but there are plenty of other nations out there that can provide what China does for us. Cheap labor is not at all the exclusive domain of China.
Far better for o
Re: (Score:2)
Companies have been pulling investment out of China. However, a company cannot change its supply chain on dime, it takes planning. Also, picking another country isn't easy lest they find themselves in a similar predicament later.
Oh hai officer (Score:5, Funny)
No this isn't a face mask, these are just really big sunglasses
Re: (Score:2)
You jest, but would sunglasses count as a masquerading device by the friendly Chinese gestapo? Facial recognition works in large part by measuring the interpupillary distance, something really dark sunglasses prevent.
We'll know next summer I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
Side on. The need of a good 2D face image in good light got replaced by much more advanced 3d math.
The sunglasses do nothing to stop Communist collect it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Skin-coloured hat with eyes and nose print
Scarf with eyes and nose print
France giving China cover (Score:2, Offtopic)
France's burka laws are giving international cover for oppressive policies in China. Way to go, France. Who would have thought you'd be giving lessons to China on oppression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. No it's not.
But punishing someone - or their family - for protesting peacefully? That is oppression.
There are verified examples of students protesting in OTHER countries, and their families back in China receiving home visits from state security. That is oppression.
Pro-democracy advocates occasionally go missing in China. That is oppression.
Peaceful protesting lowering your social score. That is oppression. (Having a social score. That is oppression.)
Not having a democratic vote ... is the friggin defin
Colonial Era Law (Score:2)
https://news.yahoo.com/colonia... [yahoo.com]
No, I don't think people will start bashing UK for such a law now. Crowd reaction here is fully in accordance with expectations.
It is not attack on freedom when UK or US or Russia or New Zealand has such laws. Oh wait... It is - in Russia's case!
How predictably hypocritical!
Re: (Score:2)
We can expect other emergency orders to follow soon, including imprisonment or disappearance without trial, government appropriation of property owned by troublemakers and their families, and other such de
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From a law and order perspective daily mass assaults on the police is a civil emergency.
That's not manufactured at all; people genuinely are going onto the streets and throwing stones and molotov cocktails at the police.
Whether you agree with one side or the other, it would be naive to pretend that this is an inappropriate use of the law.
Shit, there's an argument that this is a very benign use of the law. They're merely mandating that people do not hide their identity when attacking the police. Is that real
RIP HK (Score:3)
It would be interesting to see an accurate count of how many HK citizens support reunification with China.
In my experience (having spent weeks there a number of times while living in asia for years), most HK residents loathe dealing with "mainland" Chinese.
It's a shame this kind of disgusting governmental behavior is still an issue as we approach 2020. I wish them all the best in their fight against authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely. The West helped to create this monster and now we need to stop feeding it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame this kind of disgusting governmental behavior is still an issue as we approach 2020. I wish them all the best in their fight against authoritarianism.
When has that sort of governmental behavior *not* been the common case? What makes 2020 different from any year of recorded history?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good portion in HK that supports China, the silent majority (not the young people), the ordinary folks but most of them are too scared to speak out as these rioters are terrorizing people.
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good portion in HK that supports China, the silent majority (not the young people), the ordinary folks but most of them are too scared to speak out as these rioters are terrorizing people.
The current generation has less to lose, or believes it has less to lose, was never acclimated to the true status of Hong Kong, and sees that their future was sold out by others including the UK. Now, one generation after Hong Kong was effectively turned over to China, is when resistance could be expected to start.
*Cough* (Score:2)
Just in time for cold and flu season!
What about hats (Score:3)
Hats with blinding leds
Always wondered why UK gave back HK (Score:4, Insightful)
The China that Britain made the original HK deal with hasn't existed since the communist revolution, or maybe even long before that. Perhaps Britain honored the deal out of a sense of shame over the the opium wars and the trade that devastated the Chinese population at the time. Hindsight being what it was, Britain should have granted HK independence before 1999, and then stuck a huge military base there in exchange.
I don't understand why China wants Taiwan or HK. Can only be pride and vanity. Is it really that important to control another million people's lives? Apparently it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The China that Britain made the original HK deal with hasn't existed since the communist revolution, or maybe even long before that. Perhaps Britain honored the deal out of a sense of shame over the the opium wars and the trade that devastated the Chinese population at the time. Hindsight being what it was, Britain should have granted HK independence before 1999, and then stuck a huge military base there in exchange.
Fortuitously, for the Chinese governors, the British are too caught up in their domestic squabbles over Brexit... they have no shits to give.The Americans, who want war (other than trade) with China like Bermuda wants another hurricane, are likewise distracted at home politically and socially. Who's left to challenge international atrocities? The EU?
I don't understand why China wants Taiwan or HK. Can only be pride and vanity. Is it really that important to control another million people's lives? Apparently it is.
Prior to the WWII invasion of Poland, Germany acquired border extensions when the self-absorbed rest of the world appeased like Chamberlain. All that is nece
Re: (Score:3)
Money. In the case of Taiwan, money and intellectual property that leads to money.
Hong Kong is a major port of foreign investment into China and has its own stock exchange. Holding onto Hong Kong means the foreign cash continues to flow freely into China.
Taiwan is extremely successful and rich and has many technology companies situated there. While China already steals IP from there and everywhere else on a regular basis, it'd be a lot easier if they di
Violence IS a Solution (Score:2)
Want to stop the Chinese juggernaut of Borg assimilation and group think: sponsor a gun for HK.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed
Re: (Score:2)
helping the HKians to move there, or elsewhere in the world.
Why do you want to evict several people from their ancestral lands and the home they've lived in throughout their lives?
Surely independence for Hong Kong would be a worthier goal? China certainly doesn't need the tiny amount of land involved.
Try that in the land of free (Score:2)
The Hong Kong rioters should try throwing gasoline bombs toward police in the land of free, such as Paris/France [wikipedia.org], Ferguson/Missouri [wikipedia.org], or Los Angeles/California [wikipedia.org] and see how can "democracy" would help them.
Or maybe they can just try to sit in their own home eating ice cream [denverpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree that what the HK police are doing is murder? Right Ivan? Or do you not understand what you linked to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's two now - someone else shot in the leg.
I do agree with your point that the Hong Kong police are clearly choosing not to escalate this to lethal levels.
They are however arresting people for speaking against the state, which is one reason even the non-violent protesters are wearing masks.
does face paint include blood? (Score:2)
Scalp wound - face covered with blood - "you're under arrest for trying to disguise yourself using your own sap."
Did they ban paper bags and scissors too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without Freedom, and an independent Judiciary, there are no loopholes to be had, no hairs to split.
DUH! the AI can't figure out who they are (Score:2)
Simple solution... (Score:2)
They'll all just have to wear super-authentic Xi Jinping masks.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon even sell them: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mask-... [amazon.co.uk]
1984 (Score:2)
Remember (Score:2)
"China is asshole!"
Taiwan Phyrric victory (Score:3)
Other ways to disguise (Score:2)
Time to shave your head bald, remove eyebrows, and wear thick makeup or a fake beard.
Re: (Score:2)
Media Coverage: Epic FAIL (Score:2)
--- Absence of news is not the news! ---
An interesting BBC radio show the other day (The Real Story) featured several Hong Kongers sounding off about the Hong Kong protests --- now continuous for over four months!
The BBC host attempted, at several points, to steer the discussion away from human rights and democracy towards economic discontent as the sole cause for the protesters' "unrest" --- thankfully the Hong Kongers weren't standing for that!