[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.

[Haydos585x2]

This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future.

What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

[PricelessValue]

> This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future.

What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people.

> What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.

[Haydos585x2]

We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country.

It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it.

He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.

[jessaustin]

Saying "nobody" is at least partially wishful thinking. Hell, lots of people on HN want it. Just look at recent discussions of encryption backdoors for FBI.

[PricelessValue]

> We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country.

But you said "people of those nations"? Now you are backtracking?

> It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it.

I didn't say it was a prerequisite. My point is that the assertion that "we don't want dystopian surveillance" is absurd considering the amount of surveillance we already have. Okay? Considering the guy wrote for a western news outlet, I'm assuming by "we", he meant the western world.

> He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.

Right. And my point is that we already have it.

[PhasmaFelis]

> What people want a dystopian future?

The people creating these surveillance networks, presumably. So, I guess, politicians in China, the US, Britain, Europe, and Russia (among others).

[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-...

(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

[dictum]

Russia pretty much wrote the hypothetical NSA worst-case into law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law

> Most of the act's amendments came into effect on 20 July 2016. Amendments that require telecom operators to store recordings of phone conversations, text messages and users' internet traffic up to 6 months were announced to come into place on 1 July 2018; however, senator Anton Belyakov has submitted a proposal to move the regulations' start date to 2023, because of the extreme amount of data storage technology needed to make fulfilling the requirements possible.

[binaryriviera]

Aren't most of the cameras in the UK private as well? Obviously that doesn't mean much but it is different to places like china in that way.

[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

[PricelessValue]

> How do you even measure that?

How about on a per capita basis?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...

Or how about

1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech.

2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance.

3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable data? Nearly 50% of china still lives in rural areas.

[rconti]

So "leading surveillance systems in the world" means:

1. Who "started it" 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)

In other words, you worked backwards to produce vague descriptions of metrics by which your point would be true. If it weren't for the fact that these vague metrics in no way support your assertion.

[PricelessValue]

>1. Who "started it"

Not just who started. The quality and sophistication.

> 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)

Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?

[rconti]

"Leading" implies, to me, sophistication, how widespread it is, and how many people it impacts.

[kasey_junk]

I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to note “nearly 50% of China” is a massive number.

[justicezyx]

I have chatted with people providing tech support for this. The level of monitoring is beyond your wildest imagination.

The anecdotal number says Xinjiang spent 30B RMB on the security and surveillance. I have no details about the exact expense items.

[fdsak]

I think that is because they have large populace to deal with

[ng12]

Did you read the article? Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

[fdsak]

Well if you start to kill people on street and doing nasty things that is not impossible to tag the knives :). If you look in to history of this particular area there have been fierce street fighting and there was a tradition or culture to hang your sword/dagger or knife around your waist (before these new laws established). I think that is for public security and peace its not oppression and the law is tailored to address their local needs.

[KozmoNau7]

Then why are only Uyghurs required to get the ID branded on their cutlery?

[PricelessValue]

> Did you read the article?

Yes.

> Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom.

What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta...

Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference?

If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?

[knowaveragejoe]

If we had as few deaths from knives as China has head from knife attacks as we in the US have die from firearms in a single month, maybe even weeks, it'd be historically significant.

Add to that the social utility aspect that someone else mentioned. Firearms are explicitly designed to make it easy to hit a target with lead from far away, which just so happens to coincide with killing people in perhaps the most efficient way possible(barring weapons of mass destruction).

[samplatt]

>It sounds ridiculous to us

Not sure if calling your own example ridiculous is a good argumentative tactic in short-form debates like this...

>because our murders are by guns

Sure, but a cleavers' main manufactured purpose isn't killing other human beings. The guns involved in mass shootings are made specifically for shooting people en mass.

>If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?

No. Even though the barrier for entry for making guns is getting lower and lower, they'll never ever approach the barrier for entry for making an edged weapon.

[thinkpad20]

> Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom.

I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do.

[PricelessValue]

> I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do.

Of course they do. Good god you completely missed my point.

[dang]

Flamewars aren't welcome here. We ban accounts that post like this, so we'd appreciate it if you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abide by the rules from now on.

[mtgx]

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

Citation needed. All of those "countries" don't "want it". Perhaps some of the authoritarian leaders in some of those countries want it.

[PricelessValue]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...

[mlindner]

Bullshit. Britain and the US don't do anywhere near the scale of this collection. Also we have cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States which are set to (likely) outlaw ability for warrantless surveillance of position, which they do in China.