Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.

View on HN

The closer ally is likely to have SIGINT sharing agreements with your government.

FVEY exists so that the UK or Canada can legally spy on my communications and turn that data over to my government - which couldn’t otherwise get it without warrants and other pesky civil rights protections.

I think I’d rather take my chances with an adversarial government. I know they’d be spying but their ability to act on it is far more limited.

I think you are suggesting a false dilemma. Do you think those sharing agreements will vanish if AT&T hangs some Huawei radios on their poles?

No. But I regard my biggest threat as my own government, and if my choice per the GPs hypothetical is “less information to my government and some information to a foreign power” or “all collected data to my government and none to a foreign power”, the first choice is best for me.

Now, it may be fair to argue that the information collected from a 5G radio doesn’t mean much at all to my government. But I’d still rather depend on defense in depth.

Are you American? If so, that is a false statement. DODI 5240.1-R says "[DoD components] Will not participate in or request any person or entity to undertake any activities that are forbidden by E.O. 12333 or this issuance." [1] The NSA, which has the SIGINT authority from EO 12333 [2], is a component of the DoD. A non-DoD entity, such as FBI, Treasury, etc, would (a) not have a foreign intelligence mission and would therefore go through normal court procedures to obtain warrants to collect your communications or (b) would need to coordinate through the executive agency (NSA in the case of SIGINT) to request support for foreign communications, which brings us back to the referenced DOD instruction requiring FISA approval.

1: https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf...

2: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

Snowden showed they were sharing nudes of ex-girlfriend in TAO.

How well do you think the FISA warrant process is going in reality?

The scenario you mention is an illegal anecdotal failure of the system to work as intended.

If we're still comparing the US and China, I'd say it's working a great deal better than whatever system is currently (not) protecting Uighurs from systematic unjust search and seizure.

That it's illegal doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not happening.

Moreover, there's much more than anecdotal evidence. The recently-released report on the Trump investigation proves this. Even if you hate Trump, there's no getting around the fact that the FBI completely abused the FISA court system, getting warrants by lying and misleading the court. This is a systemic problem.

I never said we should pretend it's not happening. I'm saying that even bringing that up as a point of comparison with China is silly.

I don't understand how it's relevant to point out that US government actions are illegal. The fact is that it's really happening, so in point of fact, the US is not categorically different from China. The difference, if any, is solely one of degree.

It being illegal is relevant because it is at least considered wrong to do. The degree of difference in what is considered acceptable (and also what is happening) between the two is so staggeringly different it isn't even comparable.

I will continue to disagree, until you can show me that someone is being punished for the illegal actions, and that further steps are being taken to prevent such transgressions in the future.

Today in America it is de facto legal for law enforcement to do this stuff. The fact that a piece of paper somewhere might say otherwise has no bearing on what's actually happening.

> 325 times between 2013 and 2015, cops and employees who misused databases “were fired, suspended or resigned.”

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3124641/cops-run-unaut...

> The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

And shortly thereafter:

> The National Security Agency (NSA) has formally recommended that the White House drop the phone surveillance program that collects information about millions of US phone calls and text messages. The Wall Street Journal reports that people familiar with the matter say the logistical and legal burdens of maintaining the program outweigh any intelligence benefits it brings.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/25/nsa-drop-massive-phone-s...

Sure, the US isn't perfect.

But I'm still very certain that I trust China's approach to data privacy a little less, since they currently do all of the following to happen, without suspicion of a crime:

* mass collection of blood and hair DNA samples for citizens living in minority regions

* literal government occupation of people's homes to take photos and collect information

* installing government cameras inside of peoples homes

* using that information to track, detain, and send ~1 million minorities to re-education camps without being charged or accused of a crime... where they are subjected to forced sterilization and torture.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/13/china-visiting-officials...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-m...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/abuse-10302019142433...

The institutional attitudes to privacy are simply not comparable to the US. US authorities are not nonchalant enough about privacy that they think anything close to that that is remotely acceptable in the US.

You do make some good points there, but ultimately I don't buy it. The key thing is your citation of punishments for cops who "misused databases".

This isn't actually what's at issue here. The existence of law enforcement databases is a very different thing than the facility for spying on communications. And I still see no evidence that anyone has been punished for that, or that any active measures have been taken to protect abuses of those programs.

I have never corresponded with a Uighur, and certainly never on topics that are sensitive for the Chinese state. Have you?

I don't see any reason why I would be afforded any more legal protections than they give to their own citizens, do you?

If you're not in their jurisdiction, or neighboring jurisdictions (I've heard some rumors of events in e.g. Vietnam), they're not going to do anything to you. USA cannot make the same claim.

Private information can absolutely be used to coerce/blackmail/extort/compromise/propagandize from abroad. It happens many thousands of times every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese state did this and much worse. Governments are evil, film at eleven.

However, if this intercontinental extortion were so common, I suspect we would have heard of a single case by now.

Extortion specifically? How about the Bezos extortion case?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/21/revealed-the-s...

That link seems to refer to the actions of some other nation, which nation is considered by many foolish people to be an ally of USA. But sure, if I were worth twelve figures and I didn't want my wife to find out about my mistress, I would avoid recording my infidelity on electronic devices.

I would assume I am afforded less legal protections than a Chinese citizen!

But here's the thing: with the platonic ideal of "civil liberties" in mind that might bother me, but practically speaking? Chinese legal protections or threats have no bearing on me. None whatsoever.

I don't have a secret clearance. I don't know anyone who does. I don't know anything of significant value to the Chinese state that they couldn't use their existing sources to steal. My "deepest darkest secrets", at worst, would get me in trouble with my local government. They're not enough of a lever to make me an agent of China.

If, however, the information that could get me in trouble with my local government made it to my local government? That might be more of a concern for me.

Do you see why I might not care in the slightest what China knows about me, while simultaneously caring a great deal what my local government knows?

You're only thinking about it in the context of your own personal information, though.

There will also be effects on your peers, neighbors, and society around you. There are nation-state actors currently using stolen data for blackmail, extortion, and propaganda campaigns, to influence the economic and political stability of other nations.

Whether or not you are a direct target, you will be affected in some way. While you feel much more closely connected to your local government, they are not generally acting out of malice.

Even if I believed you - which I absolutely don’t - it’s completely irrelevant.

The intent of my government or of a foreign government has almost zero bearing on my life, for the life of any other average American – someone who does not have a secret clearance, is not committing major felonies, etc.

What matters is material condition, and the ability of that government to project force and change a person’s material condition.

If Chinese intelligence knows who my weed dealer is, or that I on occasion drive my car faster than the posted speed limit, agents of the MSS aren’t going to tail my car and pull me over. If proof that I’m pirating DVDs hits the great firewall I’m not going to get an email threatening me with legal action.

I don’t care if my government really thinks that weed purchases should be illegal or that driving 5 over the speed limit is a societal crisis or that pirating DVDs is a moral wrong: I care that they can project force against me and impact my life.

Sure, if you're not important, the data will not be used against you directly.

I'm sure you can concede that it will, however, be used against organizations, institutions, and people who are important.

Some of those will directly impact your life. This isn't a new idea, the power of both espionage and propaganda are well studied and long established to be effective.

For example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-documents-reveal-...

Funny you mention that!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod/exclusive-u-s-dir...

I don't have an answer for this question but just to play devil's advocate, is this universally true or just sometimes true for governments and certain corporations? For example, as a citizen, is my data really better off with an ally, who can use it to exploit me instantly and personally? E.g. searches for medical information increasing insurance costs.

I don't think a nation-state threat is interested in your insurance prices, but regardless, what would an ally exploit that a non-ally wouldn't?

As regular nobodies, our data is probably distributed in the hands of both allies and non-allies. As long as there's such a strong push, both commercially and institutionally, for tracking and data mining, our only recourse is going offline.

No one wants our specific dental bills, mortgages or tax returns, but governments and corporations love mass statistics.

As soon as you're a "problem", e.g. because of a large insured event or ownership of property that someone wants to buy below the market, you're on someone's radar. At that point you no longer get the "regular nobody" defense.

I would probably choose the the opposite. My most likely state-actor adversary would be "my" government so I would prefer to not to make it easier for them to spy on me.

At one time, Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia all made GSM/UMTS cellular infrastructure. Are any of them still? Other than Huawei, what other manufacturers are there?

Just cross off Motorola from your list, and there's all of your 5G options as a network provider.

After NATO would be gone, they will be allies no longer

Even if that is ever the case, US interests will still be way more aligned with Finland and Sweden than China.

How so?

For one thing, Swedes are less and less excited by the stream of Middle Eastern migrants caused by American adventures there.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/china-tries-to-put-sweden-on...

Fascinating

That's the point of the EU - defend interests of the union of relatively small countries against giants like China. NATO is only suited for military action, and who knows how long it's going to last anyway.

Also, probably the point of whatever the fuck Russia is doing with the EAEU (really should've picked a better name if they want it to stick).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com