Ban TikTok – But we need a better version of the RESTRICT Act | Hacker News Reader

Ban TikTok – But we need a better version of the RESTRICT Act

proton.me

29 pointsrc0020 comments

> but not only is this unavoidable, it’s written in Chinese law.

Do we not talk about how Australia requires that its citizens to do the same? https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...

Again, what makes China special in this arena? And why must millions of tiny (1-10 person) businesses lose their primary niche-finding advertising system to do it? And why must over 100 million people lose their most effective news source and delivery mechanism for it?

Because in Australia there is rule of law. In China it is rule by law.

That sounds like something that would look great on a t-shirt but is ultimately meaningless.

https://vannormanlaw.com/rule-law-vs-rule-law/

Scanning the internet for examples of China being a rule-by-law country consistently presents opinion pieces, or opinion pieces by other names that seem little more than propaganda. China has many, many problems; but "rule by law" doesn't look very different from numerous places that would absolutely claim to be "rule of law"; and so, to me, it remains a propagandized term with a meaning that's used primarily against sets of rules and rulers we don't like.

I see your point, I am sorry to hear that you feel this way, you feelings are valid. As someone who moved from China to the US, I feel I can appreciate the difference a lot more, on a personal level.

Then perhaps appreciating the freedom supplied by not putting everything under government control is worth looking into.

at the end both are same... Don't believe me look at those leaks.

That's simply a buzzword that does not reflect reality. Australia has clauses all throughout its federal law restricting due process, especially for "terrorism" accusations. There are also no Miranda rights for crimes that can carry a penalty of more than five years.

my authoritarian government is better than yours

People are really really weird about TikTok being a Chinese company when this is what it's like dealing with US companies not in the US. Oh no the Chinese government could access your data without you knowing? God would that be horrible, thank god we don't do that here hahaha. National Security Letter who? The US would also never use the reach of our private companies to wage information warfare. Literally if you just s/Tiktok/Facebook this article could be read verbatim about the US. We have the exact same laws and our companies do the same shady shit. On HN I hope I don't have to list the scandals from US tech companies.

It's really hard to read this push as anything other than the new red scare.

As someone not from the US, it's a bit amusing to see Americans cry about something they do on a daily basis, scrambling to find some excuse as to why it's okay when they do it but not okay when others do it. Their biggest fear is literally that China would do what they are already doing.

Bonus points for mentioning human rights or something as if the US were a country that could lecture others on human rights. The hypocrisy is stunning.

This. It's kinda awkward that everyday a new comment section gets filled with anti Chinese propaganda even thought most here on HN should definitely know better.

It's time we talk about privacy. However this is completely the wrong way to do so.

Not even 24 hours later

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35556193

> The problem is not technical, FB could write anything, the security of the system is as weak as its weakest link. The problem here is way way behind the computer. https://xkcd.com/538/ The weakest link here, is that Facebook has to respect US laws. They don't have a choice there. So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done.

> We believe there are specific actions that the RESTRICT Act can mandate that will diminish the risks posed by Chinese apps without compromising the future of the free and open internet.

> Prevent US advertisers from doing business with them

> Prevent US-based cloud providers from hosting them

> Prevent US social media sites from linking to them

How can reducing access to internet resources, reducing who can link to what service, and restricting who can do business with whom based on geographic regions be called uncompromising on "free and open".

Great, consistent argument as to why privacy matters and why this legislation does the opposite of help.

The only thing that matters is the App/Play stores.

It's just a glorified geo-lock.

Why not just disconnect China from the Internet once and for all.

I think reducing the number of computers/people connected to the internet is fundamentally counterproductive to the nature of the internet -- the global computer network.

Disconnecting >1b people makes the internet less internet-like.

Why would any one country be able to decide which other countries have access to the internet? Where is freedom if this is where are are at?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com