[ethbr1]

The idea of running any internet-connected software with a push-update mechanism, built and controlled by a company in a country without a strong independent rule of law, should terrify far more people than it apparently does.

This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.

[peoplefromibiza]

It's pretty obvious that this is not a problem at all, the only problem right now it's fabricating a narrative where someone is bad "because" while everyone allied with us (the west) it's not "because not".

You seem to be worried that an unfair judicial system poses a threat to everyone connected to the internet, well I got some news for you: Uber received $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and they are planning now to invest $40 billion on AI. Why are US companies accepting money from a bloodthirsty dictatorship then? A dictatorship where the actual dictator, Bin Salman, among other things, detained three members of the royal family (his family) for unexplained reasons, ordered the assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and that, even more worrisome, had spies in Twitter and McKinsey that helped him track down dissidents and silence critics. McKinsey and Twitter are still actively working with the Saudis and nobody has nothing to say about it... Not surprisingly the Saudi Prince Alwaleed is the second largest investor in twitter ATM through the Kingdom Holding.

Maybe we should refocus our priorities on the issues at large, not just those issues that are beneficial to the US in their war for the global supremacy.

[ethbr1]

A pile of facts is not an argument.

I understand this is how modern pro-wrestling news addresses issues, but assembling a mass of emotionally-inflammatory things doesn't buttress your point.

Specific countries have greater or lesser individual rights and adherence to law.

Why doesn't it make sense to take that into account when extending trust to specific pieces of software running on your device?

[FactKnower69]

>a country without a strong independent rule of law

I'd really like you to try and define this term in a way that doesn't exclude the US

[seanmcdirmid]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but judicial independence is one thing that the USA has (in some quantity) that China has none of. There is no such thing as judicial review in China, if the official class decides to ignore China's constitutional freedoms of speech, religion, and press, then there is no recourse for a court to come in and say, "no, that's not right." Vs. the USA, where the Supreme court comes in all the time and tells presidents and congress what they can't do.

The Chinese government has said multiple times that it believes rule of law is a western imperialistic concept, so it isn't like this is even a goal for them.

[ethbr1]

If anyone wants to point to US FISA laws and use that to equate the US justice system with China's, I'm all ears...