US Tech Giants Halt Reviews of Hong Kong Demands For User Data (techcrunch.com) 45
Facebook and Twitter have confirmed they have suspended processing demands for user data from Hong Kong authorities following the introduction of a new Beijing-imposed national security law. From a report: A spokesperson for Facebook told TechCrunch it will "pause" the processing of data demands until it can better understand the new national security law, "including formal human rights due diligence and consultations with human rights experts." The spokesperson added: "We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions." Facebook said its suspension will also apply to WhatsApp, which it owns.
Soon after, Twitter also confirmed it followed suit. "Given the rapid pace at which the new National Security Law in China has been passed and that it was only published in its entirety for the first time last week, our teams are reviewing the law to assess its implications, particularly as some of the terms of the law are vague and without clear definition," said a Twitter spokesperson. "Like many public interest organizations, civil society leaders and entities, and industry peers, we have grave concerns regarding both the developing process and the full intention of this law," the spokesperson said.
Soon after, Twitter also confirmed it followed suit. "Given the rapid pace at which the new National Security Law in China has been passed and that it was only published in its entirety for the first time last week, our teams are reviewing the law to assess its implications, particularly as some of the terms of the law are vague and without clear definition," said a Twitter spokesperson. "Like many public interest organizations, civil society leaders and entities, and industry peers, we have grave concerns regarding both the developing process and the full intention of this law," the spokesperson said.
There's no vague implications (Score:2)
You will help us crack down on the human capital, or you will vacate our acquisitions.
Re: (Score:2)
And by "human capital" we mean, organ "donors."
They've harvested all the Falun Gong, they need a new source. They've selected Hong Kong. They're physically Chinese, but they're culturally tainted by English colonialism.
Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are likely foreseeing that Western governments are going to be tightening the screws on actions companies take in China. It's self-serving from the respect that it's best to be ahead of their governments on limiting cooperation with Chinese authorities than wait for the US and other allies forcing them. There seems to be a growing consensus in the West that something has to be done about the new security law in Hong Kong, and this is the way it will unfold.
Re: (Score:2)
The implication is the law applies worldwide -
Re: (Score:3)
The implication is the law applies worldwide - if you say anything that is not the party line, even while you're outside China, you can be subject to the law. Granted, China can't do anything if you're in another country, but should you pass through China they can arrest you for violating the law.
Not to ignore that the US tries the same sort of thing, but, China's new national security law claims that it applies to everyone, everywhere [npr.org] in the world. You, as a US citizen in the US, are now guilty of violating Chinese law.
The law applies to anyone, anywhere in the world
The law is expansively extraterritorial in its scope. According to Article 38, it can apply even to offenses committed "outside the region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the region."
That means an American penning an editorial for a U.S. newspaper that argues for, say, sanctions against China, could technically fall afoul of the law for "inciting hatred" against Beijing.
"It is asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet," wrote Donald Clarke, a law professor at George Washington University, noting that the national security law is even more broad in scope than China's own criminal law.
I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: the very idea of "crime" requires two parties, and a crime can be created either one-at-a-time by comission, or all-at-once by legislation. We hear a lot of, "well, don't break the law," today, which does nothing to address the pipe
Re: (Score:2)
To raise my own straw man,
a crime can be created either one-at-a-time by comission, or all-at-once by legislation. We hear a lot of, "well, don't break the law," today,
Well, you say, that would be an ex post facto law if it punished people who hadn't, from that point forward, gone and actively committed the legislated offense. It would be thrown out!
Sure, in an idealized system. This brings me to my next point: let's not forget that most people can't keep every last detail of the entirety of the C++ spec in their heads, let alone the entirety of the legal code. It's simply not possible to memorize the full legal code on an ongoing basis.
For start
Re: (Score:2)
Not to ignore that the US tries the same sort of thing, but
False. People in foreign countries that are accused of violating US law are people who did business with a US bank, in almost all cases. If you're doing things illegal in the US, you can't use US banks. It is simple, and also the same in every country. If an American opens a bank account in France and is conducting business that is illegal in France, they might violate French law when they tell their bank they're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been very clear on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, sure.
That's why we drone strike them in their own countries [wikipedia.org].
Grégoire Chamayou's analysis, of one three hour long surveillance and attack operation on a convoy of three SUVs that killed civilians in Afghanistan in February 2010, shows a typical, if notorious, case. Throughout the operation there is a sense of the drone controllers’ desperation to destroy the people and destroy the vehicles — whatever the evidence of their clearly civilian nature. The transcript is full of statements like “that truck would make a beautiful target”; “Oh, sweet target!”; “the men appear to be moving tactically”; and “They’re going to do something nefarious”.
We claim US law applies to non-US people, in non-US countries, and murder them over it all the time. Take your head out of the sand. The US routinely claims that planning any sort of action against the US is a violation of US law, even if you're a foreign national in your own country. If it didn't apply to them, what's the justification for murdering them? Shouldn't you have to wait until they get to our country and actually commit the crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't you have to wait until they get to our country and actually commit the crime?
If you have evidence that someone is planning an act of terrorism or war, then no. You don't wait. Ideally you'd intercept them in transit, though; either at a border, or on the water. At best it looks bad if you blow them up at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes you wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)
The US has restrictions on cooperation with China, Hong Kong was considered an independent state according to the agreements when the Brits vacated. Last week China effectively annexed Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:2)
Last week China effectively annexed Hong Kong.
In my view they effectively gave it back to the UK.
Hmm (Score:2)
"We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right "
Hmm is that a fact?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The absolutely believe in freedom of expression . . . until you express something they disagree with.
That's not 100% true. they only object when you should know better. You've been told why it's true now just agree with everyone already so we can call it a consensus!
See - they're not disagreeing, you are. once you have been properly re-educated you will understand why it had to be this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of oppression.
The Irony Just Keeps On Keepin' On (Score:1)
Might I just say, "Fuck you, Facebook."
Re: (Score:3)
So you're applauding them for not censoring in Hong Kong but chastising them for not censoring in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people act just like CCP and don't even realize it. They believe in free speech in so far as it doesn't disagree with their own views. They forget the ideals of the enlightenment, what modern western society was built upon. Their minds corrupted by authoritarian teachers who tell them how those great minds were sinful imperfect humans and therefore not worth listening to. This is the cancer of collectivist tribalism. It is the cause of mass suffering and the downfall of societies.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people act just like CCP and don't even realize it. They believe in free speech in so far as it doesn't disagree with their own views.
Most people do not think in this manner. Most want free speech to be equally applied to their own viewpoint and the viewpoints of others. What many people are comfortable in constraining is false information and propaganda. What they do a bad job of determining is the difference between a viewpoint they disagree with and an actual falsehood. So they can have the tendency to be hypocritical on how they would like free speech to be applied to those they disagree with strongly.
This is very different than the C
Re: (Score:2)
So you're applauding them for not censoring in Hong Kong but chastising them for not censoring in the US?
OK, what if the "toxic sludge" consists of things other than speech? Then are you just an ignorant dumbass who doesn't understand what is going on around him? (spoiler: it does, and yes)
Now look up who how facebook works, and why some things get shown to more people than others, and how people who see one thing or another are selected, etc. Then perhaps you can figure out where the toxic sludge comes from, and why it exists. Because it isn't caused by people's non-commercial speech, nor is it caused by any
Translation (Score:2)
If you want the data, pay like everyone else you moochers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CCP delenda est. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is China even communist anymore though? I mean I know in name they are (after all it's still the Chinese Communist Party in control), but it seems like the economic parts of communism are mostly ignored and they only part that has stuck around is the absolute authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The authoritarianism isn't part of Communism, that's an "implementation detail".
That said, there is no Communist state, and there probably can't be, as it's too unstable to survive. From the outside it appears to me as a totalitarian state run by a small oligarchy and a large bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Authoritarianism and its ultimate end-form, totalitarianism, have the same stench no matter what the system of resource distribution looks like.
The political spectrum isn't a line. You can be an awful left-wing authoritarian or an awful right-wing authoritarian. Different color lipstick doesn't mean the pig is any different (sorry, actual pigs).
Re: (Score:2)
The authoritarianism isn't part of Communism, that's an "implementation detail".
Google definition of communism:
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
[emphasis mine]
Property rights are a human right which extend from the philosophical principle that your life is an end in itself; i.e: you exist for your own sake and are not a tool that exists to be used by others. The implication of having no right to the products of your own productive efforts (be they intellectual, material or artistic) and that your life exists to serve the needs of "society" | "the greater good" | "whatever" is a form of slavery and very comfortably fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute authoritarianism is what most of China had before Communism, other than Manchuria. Which is perhaps more occupied than it is Chinese.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the origin of the term "landlord". The original landlords were the allies of William the Invader, who in theory owned the entire conquered area outright, and lent parts of it to various allies as a payoff for their assistance in the conquest. I'm not quite certain how the yeomen fit into this. Perhaps they just lived on pieces of land that William didn't give to a friend or ally. I'm rather certain they didn't have official right to live there, but they were unimportant enough that nobody stopp
Aren't these "real name" platforms anyway? (Score:2)
Both Facebook and Twitter are rushing to be "authentic identity" providers, but are also anti-"authentic identity"? What a fucking shitshow. They want to be the place for everyone's public face, but also don't want the responsibility of protecting their users at all. It's totally weird.
http://obsceneworks.com/blog/h... [obsceneworks.com]
http://obsceneworks.com/blog/h... [obsceneworks.com]
just need to EXIT Hong Kong! (Score:2)
just need to EXIT Hong Kong!
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense unless you also exit China. There are arguments in favor of that, but I'm not sure they hold water.
What data were they providing before? (Score:3)
Very curious as to how much data these companies were cheerfully handing over to the authorities before this "suspension", and under what conditions. Presumably anything handed over before is now going to be totally visible to anyone in the authorities that wants access to it.
Reminder that if you are in countries where you need to worry about authorities looking over your shoulder, you need to pick your communications platforms carefully.
Signal's comment on this issue says it all [twitter.com].
lol (Score:2)
A spokesperson for Facebook told TechCrunch it will "pause" the processing of data demands until it can better understand the new national security law, "including formal human rights due diligence and consultations with human rights experts." The spokesperson added: "We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and support the right of people to express themselves without fear for their safety or other repercussions."
Let me just go post a nude to Faceboot and see how that goes...