[puranjay]

This entire thing saddens me a great deal. It seems that you can just whip people up into a frenzy - even th HN crowd - simply by shouting "national security" and providing no proof to back it up.

Has everyone really forgotten Saddam's WMDs so quickly?

[jacobush]

Not really. We know private data is being weaponised, it’s just that we as a society have turned a blind eye to it when it’s domestic companies doing it. Right or wrong, possibly because we believe in the checks and balances here. When it comes to China, partly because of prejudice I guess, but also because of the evidence. There you get thrown into forced labour when electronic surveillance indicates you should be.

We are not quite that bad here. (Yet, I guess, if we don’t turn the tide.)

[puranjay]

> We know private data is being weaponised

How? What security risks does the DM inbox of a 16 year old possess?

[jacobush]

What do you have to hide? Nothing? Ok then, let's give all your data and social graphs to marketing companies, who will be careful custodians.

[owenmarshall]

I thought this strong arm acquisition was happening because of national security. Are we walking that back to "personal privacy"? When does the US seize Facebook to protect our data and social graphs?

[jacobush]

Fair point.

The US has already "seized" Facebook because it operates under US oversight.

I'm not sure I express myself clearly enough. The US (apparently, de facto) is OK with companies violating all sorts of personal privacy, as long as the US gov has the final say in how the data is used. If a foreign power is doing the same to US citizens, or even non-US citizens, the US is not as OK with it, because it would cede that advantage to some other country.

[puranjay]

But there are countless small and large websites and app that collect private information, perhaps even more egregiously than Facebook because they're not in the limelight.

Why is that not a security risk? If it isn't, what's the minimum number of users you should have before you start becoming a risk?

There have to be some standards and arguments to justify a blanket ban. Just weaving the "national security" wand seems, to me, inconsistent and dictatorial.

[puranjay]

I'm no fan of that either, but where does the national security risk come in?

[jacobush]

Giving random private companies Stasi like surveillance by default is in my opinion a national security risk for many reasons. It feels strange that I even have to point out that its ripe for corruption:

- people in the know can shape the narrative

- shady domestic or foreign powers can get access

- a future potential non-democratic dictatorship has a turn-key surveillance and propaganda tool already up and running

I think that's bad.

[xvector]

I too was surprised that the HN crowd supported Trump’s and Microsoft’s actions so much. The people here are fairly intelligent and tend to have a good education. We are no stranger to history. We know that “national security risk” has been used to justify terrifying programs like PRISM and the Patriot Act.

And despite having this in mind, so many folks here just openly supported what is effectively a hostile and coercive takeover of a foreign corporation.

If some of the most educated people in this country can fall victim to populist xenophobia then I don’t have much hope for us overall.

[FooBarWidget]

People are normally skeptical of the US media and of government claims. Yet when it comes to China-related topics, people eat it all up, with minimal critical thinking, and even amplify them. China is not without problems, but people react so strongly to China-related issues that the subject is the perfect distraction, the perfect propaganda tool.