Hacker News Reader

Comment by kypro | Hacker News Reader

It's funny, no one in the UK cares about real actual privacy, yet we're obsessed about the "dangers" of tracking cookies.

I don't know how true this is outside the UK, but here people are generally happy for the government to monitor their internet and mobile communications, they're happy for supermarkets to use facial recognition cameras to identify them at checkout, they're happy for CCTV to monitor their every move, but if Google tracks your search results, that's going too far.

Even on the topic of encryption, most people don't really care as long as it's not Facebook or Google reading their messages. If you're any other business or the government, then go on ahead... Collect our biometric data, read our emails, track our movements. No need for consent.

View on HN

I think we only need to look at China to understand why people have these attitudes, and I think it is an important lesson to learn. There's two critical components to this. First, the Chinese people trust their government. They are not afraid of that information being used against them, unless they are doing something wrong (and wrong to the collective people, not just something illegal). They directly see how surveillance has reduced child trafficking, theft, and other such hard to trace crimes. This builds confidence in their government and confidence that the power is being used for good. Second, for your average Chinese person, life has gotten substantially better. A significant amount of people have been lifted out of poverty. It is not uncommon to hear about people being born in rural impoverished farms and then owning Ferraris when they are older (not your average case, to be clear). This further builds confidence in the government because things have gotten so much better.

But China has something to learn from the West too. We've already lifted the vast majority of our people out of poverty. It is harder to continually improve peoples' lives when you have to invent new things rather than play catch up. Hyper-growth is unsustainable and eventually China will have the same slower growth as the West (be that 5 years or 50 years). People get used to whatever situation they are in and expect different things. People in the West don't have as much trust for their governments and are more afraid of turnkey tyranny than they are of gaining a better life. In other words, they are more afraid of losing their good lives.

With the West I think we can see the connection between governments and companies. We were fine with those companies taking our data because they made our lives better. But things have stagnated now and the bad outweighs the good. We've seen these companies abuse their power, but in many ways we still trust the governments to reign them in. But you're right, governments are also capable of the same abuse, or even more. That's the danger of turnkey tyranny though, that it is the actions you give to leaders you trust that are abused. It flies under the radar and those powers are given with good intentions.

I also think tech illiteracy plays a major role here, but I've already written a lot (and barely broached the subject)

Surveillance has made it easier to prosecute and encamp "unwanted" religious minorities such as the Uyghurs. You're making a lot of bold generalizations that don't hold much merit if you look deeper into the actual policies in China right now. China is considered one of the countries of most concern because not enough is being done to meaningfully combat human trafficking. Life getting better for the layperson has nothing to do with China's strong surveillance and media control policy. Chinese people trust their government due to a strong culture of nationalism.

> Surveillance has made it easier to prosecute and encamp "unwanted" religious minorities such as the Uyghurs

Who said they weren't? My discussion is why the _average_ Chinese citizen doesn't care. You're talking about a minority group, which by definition is not average.

> life getting better for the layperson has nothing to do with China's strong surveillance and media control policy.

It actually does. The reason being that the government can do this without the layperson getting upset. Why isn't the layperson getting upset? See my above comments.

> Chinese people trust their government due to a strong culture of nationalism.

Which doesn't appear out of nowhere. It isn't happening because race. There are plenty of Asians that live in democracies. It isn't just historical culture. There are plenty of Asian countries that were previously ruled by... China itself.

I'm fine introducing new topics to the discussion but please don't put words in my mouth. I'd take your own advice and not make a lot of bold generalizations. I happily noted that there was far more nuance than what I wrote, but let's recognize the constraints of our platform. I can't discuss everything nor can I know everything. But if you're going to come at me and complain about a lack of nuance you shouldn't make the same error. You should also participate in good faith otherwise we're just going to end up in a fight, which is unproductive.

I think you're equating people not speaking out, and being silenced, as being the same as them agreeing with how things are run. The layperson doesn't have room or a voice to be able to question and doubt government policy. They can't show if they are upset because of the surveillance policy.

Hong Kong is a great example of what happens when people living in a surveillance society speak out. The Hong Kong people have been silence, as have the people in Taiwan. They aren't happy to be ruled by China. There's nothing democratic about what happened there.

I didn't make generalizations, I gave you concrete examples. I also just pointed out the poor conclusions you are jumping to. I apologize if that felt personally, that was not my intention at all. Having a strong surveillance policy makes the layperson feel worse about the society they live in, I urge you to read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't.

The nationalism in China has its roots in how the government propaganda painted themselves and the Chinese people compared with "outsiders". It is a direct consequence of historical events and culture. It is not a new thing that came forward with the advent of technology and a feeling of security due to living in a surveillance state.

The West isn't okay with neither the government nor corporations taking our data. Overall the west still has some of the best civil rights protections, due to the rights being codified in law. Facebook is being tried in court in multiple countries. Zuckerburg is going to be deposed in court due to Facebook's relationship to the privacy violations by Cambridge Analytica. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-20/zuckerber...

I don't believe good faith discussions include considering stripping of the basic human right to privacy. It's not a binary choice between the government having that information vs corporations having it. For a while the layperson in the west didn't know it was happening. But now we're seeing the consequences of what will happen now that they do. China doesn't give people that same kind of choice on the right to privacy.

Saying the average Chinese citizen doesn't care is a generalization without any backing. Silence isn't the same as agreement.

> I think you're equating people not speaking out, and being silenced

I have several close Chinese friends who have argued with me that reeducation camps are different from concentration camps and that there is nothing wrong with them. That "they're just taking the children away temporarily." (a claim made and literally every non-Chinese person in the group stopped and then called them out on it)

> The layperson doesn't have room or a voice to be able to question and doubt government policy.

I disagree. Criticizing the government is popular past time in the West, especially America. So I don't really agree with this premise. I do agree that things are different in China, but I disagree that one can't speak out, especially when one is overseas and not surrounded by other countrymen.

> I didn't make generalizations, I gave you concrete examples.

The generalization complaint was about your generalization of my comment and assuming I had taken a position I didn't. Honestly, I think you and I agree on more things than we disagree. I just think we work in different bubbles.

> They are not afraid of that information being used against them

O RLY?

> unless they are doing something wrong

The thing about the law in most countries is, the government can usually find you to be doing something wrong, if it wants to.

> They directly see how surveillance has reduced child trafficking, theft, and other such hard to trace crimes

Interesting that they can "see" what is at best a conclusion of multiple long-term comparative studies, and at worst an unsubstantiated claim.

> They can [etc. etc.]

Well, the Chinese people can apparently make many poorly-supported over-generalizations about themselves! Oh wait, that's _posts_ about the Chinese people.

> We've already lifted the vast majority of our people out of poverty

Hmm. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of homeless people in the US. Or anyone who tries to get medical treatment and asked to shell out tens of thousands of USD.

> O RLY?

Whether this is an empirically correct attitude or not is not the topic of conversation, the fact is that average Chinese citizens are overwhelmingly in support of a surveillance culture because they feel the benefits are obvious and bring meaningful quality of life improvements while the downsides are acknowledged and not regarded as serious enough to outweigh the benefits. Even citizens who are quite critical of the Chinese government in other respects rarely bring up surveillance as a gripe they have.

Thank you. This is the entire argument I was trying to make. I think people are getting confused because I'm talking about how people feel rather than talking about explicit facts. That how people feel about a government body can be very different than how that government body actually acts, and recognizing both is extremely important.

> They directly see how surveillance has reduced child trafficking, theft, and other such hard to trace crimes.

I doubt China has really reduced those crimes that much. It's very hard for an individual to gauge that when all media sources you have are government controlled propaganda. Most people are not directly affected by things like human trafficking. So how do they know it's been reduced other than those propaganda sources?

I'm pretty sure the only thing they really care about in terms of surveillance is organised political opposition.

A lot of fraud and scams come from China, I think it's safe to say that they don't care, at least when it affects people in other countries.

> I doubt China has really reduced those crimes that much.

I have no idea. But the point I was trying to make is that people believe that the crime has been reduced. This is probably a more important metric when it comes to determining why people would or would not trust a government. It is important to realize that peoples' perspectives are often not rooted in reality. I bring this up because people responding to me are not operating under the assumption that this is possible. Is this not understood? Do I need to provide evidence? I can. But it seems you do understand since your next sentence is talking about propaganda. So I'm a bit confused at how to respond to your comment. I don't know if you're agreeing, disagreeing (this is what it sounds like), or just adding more information. As to propaganda, I'm not sure the average person is acutely aware of it, since this is the literal purpose. I mean it is easier to see on the outside (propaganda of another country vs propaganda from your own country) and I think we often pretend propaganda is more "Uncle Sam needs you" vs "What's your carbon footprint?"[0] Because propaganda is aimed at specific people it is generally unnoticed when you are the actual target.

[0] This isn't anti-climate change rhetoric, this is a campaign started by BP to shift fault from corporations to individuals.

I agree that the average Chinese person would think that their government is doing a good thing. After all their views are controlled by that very government.

However I disagree that this is a good reason for surveillance. Because I don't think it actually improves quality of life. Also, I really abhor the Chinese confucian values of "society first". I really value our freedom and individuality.

Luckily it seems the corona crisis seems to be lifting that veil of propaganda a bit. I hear a lot of Chinese are really getting sick of the heavy-handed manner in which it is controlled. I can only hope that they will revolt, however I doubt it will be successful because the surveillance machine is primed to detect early outbursts of revolution and nip it in the bud. Kinda ironic since the current regime in China ascended to power through revolution.

> However I disagree that this is a good reason for surveillance

To be clear, I never made this argument.

You’re cherry picking a subset of people there. I imagine some view it with a sort of mild indifference, but there are people who are concerned about their own privacy from both government and big tech. I generally disregard any sentence that starts with “most people..” because it usually can’t be backed up with sources.

The newer generation is definitely very much ok with it. I've stopped taking or discussing privacy issues at certain circles because I basically get called paranoid boomer.

If the newer generation is OK with it then we're just going to be compost for the future that's ahead.

tbh they don't really know what privacy is

Would you mind explaining this? My initial instinct was to disagree but I’m old and likely don’t understand.

I’d love to hear more.

I don't think that response is accurate. I'm not old and I can say electronic privacy is something my friends and I do care about. I'm not sure why people are making these kinds of generalizations. Literary analysis of George Orwell's 1984 is part of the standard curriculum in the US for high school students.

I really appreciate this reply. I didn’t realize that 1984 was part of the standard US curriculum- that’s interesting.

Thanks for engaging with me!

I have had a much different experience, people say they miss the old internet when things were much more anonymous. They worry for the coming generation because of how much of life is broadcasted and preserved online via social media. The new generation isn't okay with it at all.

But the new new generation won't even remember the old internet. They won't know any better. I think this generation is now emerging and this is what the OP refers to.

This generation's parents are part of the generation that grew with the old internet. There's no time period where people will no longer know the consequences of not having privacy online. And if they do, they'll one day reach an age and regret something they said and wish it didn't exist online. They'll end up relearning the lesson. There's a strong "woke" culture that isn't going away with coming generations. The right to privacy is a pillar that people will always fight to protect.

The people of UK do care actually and see many of the policies of the government as draconian and really out of touch. They do care about privacy. The UK government has been pushing with media campaigns to try to undermine the necessity of E2E encryption.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/revealed-u... (Jan 2022)

This kind narrative is being pushed by the US, UK, and Australia right now. Unfortunately for the people in Australia, some dangerous bills have already been passed.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/25/austr...

In the Netherlands people are often accused (in discussion fora) of the opposite: complaining about extensions to government oversight but putting their personal lives on Google and Facebook.

I don't like either myself. I think the UK has long been a hotspot of surveillance and CCTV and people have got used to it. But I never will. Luckily I don't live in the UK and I avoid visiting it.

Google is a foreign company commanded by US interests, why would a UK citizen trust them?

When the police rapidly catch murderers, you really get to appreciate the usefulness of those CCTV cameras.

The anti-encryption attitude is mainly a Tory thing and most people in general just don't understand encryption.

Most people don't care about it... until they're personally impacted.. and by then it's too late.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com