Obama sharply criticizes China's plans for new technology rules | Hacker News Reader

Obama sharply criticizes China's plans for new technology rules

reuters.com

71 pointsNietTim67 comments

I laugh at the blatant double standards held by the U.S. government here. They want to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. with all companies, yet they criticize China for wanting to do the same thing there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want China to drop that policy, then you have to be willing to drop that policy too.

Yeah, and at least China is honest about their snooping. It's tiring hearing the company line here in the US about how we are so great with personal liberties.

...and they've become a going concern for anyone who has anything to do with U.S. corporations. Even if it's not been said, people are quietly pulling their data onto their own servers, outside of U.S. jurisdiction and encrypting the crap out of everything. It's a matter of national security. You cannot have another nation spying on your citizens. If you allow that to happen on your watch, you're signing the end of your political career.

The basic US premise is that we are the good side so the same rule for all does not apply to us. Only police can have weapons not everyone.

and we all knows what happens when you walk down that path... even if benevolence is your goal, that's a dictatorship, not a democracy. You will do what we say, not what we do. That's hypocritical and is the cause of things like terrorist attacks.

If you want to live in harmony with the world around you, you have to work to live in harmony with the world around you... with all the world's leaders one team, working together for the good of the world. You can't have one in there telling everyone else how they're going to act and then acting completely contrary to that themselves. That's not how things work.

Have these people not seen Star Wars? That's what happens when you try and control everyone. The U.S. is The Empire trying to enforce their will on the universe... and the terrorists, as clumsy and abhorrent as they are, are playing the role of the Jedi - except they're playing without honour or any form of human decency it seems.

That's what happens when you enforce your policies on other nations who have their own internal problems to worry about without you bitching about what they are or aren't doing for you.

If the U.S. wants to stop being at war with terrorists, how about find a way to give the terrorists an appropriate voice at the table. What is it they want? Why do they want it? What are they hoping to solve by getting it? How can the U.S. help them find a morally decent solution to their problems? Maybe then instead of constantly making enemies, they can make some friends. Friends are what you need when times are tough... and given U.S. unemployment, poverty and levels of incarceration just now, I'd say times are pretty tough. They could do with making some friends instead of just working to be part of the popular crowd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes]. It's about time to drop being the school yard bully throwing their weight around and expecting everyone to bend to their will.

China wants to go further than the U.S. From the article:

"requires companies to also keep servers and user data within China, supply law enforcement authorities with communications records and censor terrorism-related Internet content."

Last I checked, the U.S. does not require companies to keep servers and user data within the U.S. or censor terrorism-related content.

I think this is related to Chinese user data. Europe requires the same thing. European data must stay in Europe and European authorities must have access to that data. U.S. must not have access to, nor jurisdiction over that data. I think that's fair - it's basically a "You cannot spy on our citizens, but we can".

Of course, as people are becoming wise to these tactics, they're doing what they did with their money back in the day - sent it somewhere neutral that has strong privacy laws. Outside the jurisdiction of countries that will spy on them.

Wait, wasn't it his own government which decided to spy on their own people ? Didn't he force his own country's companies to spy on his own people?

I used to like obama a lot. Used to...

It's only bad if others do it, because he is the good guy! Right guys?

Of course he is the good guy! He is the president from the USA, remember!? I saw American Sniper the other day, and it is very clear that they are the good guys, even when they are killing little kids. You can see it because it is so damn stressing for them to kill kids, that they can barely forget the experience. They are really, really good! And fighting for the good of everybody too! (well, not for the good of that little kid). They are so good!

He also said he was against warrantless wiretapping during his campaign.

He was against it before he was for it.

To be fair, people change opinions.

To be fair if you make campaign promises and then change your mind as soon as you're in power it doesn't look so good.

Isn't force a large assumption on your part? Is Obama actually in control of the NSA, making them do what they do?

China is only trying to be upfront and public about things the US and Western countries have been doing in private for years.

That is not to say I approve, (I do not) but my respect for Chinese authorities just went up a notch. The good thing about this is that it brings debate far more into the open and shines a light on some very shady policies.

This is what has to happen to raise the bar.

But doing it openly spooks the consumers!

The Chinese government never never really care about counter terrorism, all they care about is keeping their power. To keep their power they need to control their people's mind, to control people's mind they need to control the internet. That's it. It's not about privacy, it's about free speech. Please do not confuse this with the debate (about privacy) happening in the western countries.

Inevitably when you take away privacy you hamper freedom of speech. There have already been polls of journalists who are concerned with reporting on important items because of a lack of privacy.

Same parallels can be drawn for western powers. Counterterrorism is the raison du jour for expanding and securing power. See what we've done and continue to do to the free press when it concerns our military affairs or national security. See the firewalls western countries are building that rival the Great Firewall.

The debate about online privacy vs. the government in the West is largely about free speech vs. governments exercising total control to maintain power, so I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make.

I'm not saying that there isn't a very large difference in the current state of China vs. the West in this area, but the subject is the same.

Well, you should be saying that there isn't a very large difference. Or maybe there is, but in the opposite way that you are suggesting. The US has the same motivation (proven by the leaks and media reports) of spying on people. More, they are willing to spy on the whole world population (as much as they can get), which the Chinese have little interest in doing it seems. And they have, much more than the Chinese:

- the technical capabilities to implement those policies

- the global presence to interfere in all communications worldwide

- the political influence to force it in lots of places

- the money to implement those policies

Of all that, the Chinese can only dream. The only thing the Chinese have is a huge market that western companies want to tap, and that is what the Chinese government wants to use to get a foothold into your routers.

But, in comparison to what the US wants and can do, this is peanuts.

In China the control over internet is simply control over people, there is absolutely no benefit for the people - if you keep speaking against the government without hiding your identity, you are in trouble. So, there is no debate over whether more control from the government is good or bad.

In the West there is at least still a debate between privacy (potential impact to free speech) and safety against terrorism.

It only took two people (Manning and Snowden) to remove any remaining credibility left in US foreign policy. You almost have to feel embarrassed for Obama and co.

Well, in reality, the two people that removed any remaining credibility left in the US foreign policy are George W Bush and Obama. Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice helped, though.

Come on, are Obama and W much worse than Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Rossevelt? The US will keep using up the last of its credibility year after year, and of course that just means it isn't.

Carter replenished the national credibility account?

Nah, I just picked the most egregious ones as examples, skipping the ones that were lower profile. As I get older, I just see things repeating over and over; the young kids think we are reaching into new bads just because they are seeing it for the first time.

Now get off my lawn.

He's the only U.S. President in a long time to have no US troops deployed in combat, as I recall. Definitely since WWII, possibly WWI or earlier.

Well, there was Operation Eagle Claw to try and rescue the US hostages in Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Carter is the canonical example of why you cannot appear soft on foreign policy.

Also the Missile Gap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

Not deployed in combat (or at least didn't reach the stage of combat).

The mission itself was a failure.

I'll bite.

Yes, in terms of foreign policy, I think that W and especially Obama have been profoundly, historically, difficult-to-believe bad.

I'm not trying to downplay Iran-Contra, Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam, etc., but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire.

The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and sovereignty of other nations have reduced in relevance to the Empire's decision making process to zero.

It's interesting you bring up Roosevelt: don't forget - that was an actual, declared war - by Congress. So in terms of assessing foreign policy that's different for sure.

By comparison, Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars. I think this is, as you say, "much worse."

The last two presidents will always be the worst ones then? There was a lot of shady stuff going on during W2 that makes today's situation look like child's play.

The last 8 years have been relatively quiet compared to the 00s or 90s or 80s. Historically speaking, I bet 20 years from now most of Obama's interventions are mere footnotes, like Reagan's mostly are.

It's hard to top putting hundreds of thousands of citizens in camps and stealing all their property. And that's just if we limit it to the 20th century to present.

Of course that occurred to me, but I declined to mention it because it's not, strictly speaking, foreign policy.

Seven undeclared wars during Obama's presidency. Is it these? Afganistan, Iraq, ISIL, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen. I seem to be missing one.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Un...

Somalia.

We've also bombed Syria. It seems Ukraine and Russia are next on the list for the crazies in DC.

Serious question - do you think it has anything to do with both of these being 'internet age' Presidents?

I mean, prior to 2001 the web wasn't what it is today - but now news/information/opinion/whistleblowing/whatever spreads quickly and easily and reaches pretty much everyone. Could it not just be that it's harder to be clandestine and easier to speak out / monitor everything?

Yes, I think this is very possible. And I like the optimism that it suggests. The more we know!

I'm no fan of either Obama or W, but I do think your comment is unfair. The truth is, given the peak status US enjoyed, there is no foreign policy would bring meaningful and tangible benefit to people of USA. It's a typical diminishing marginal utility situation.

>The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and sovereignty of other nations have reduced in relevance to the Empire's decision making process to zero.

Other nations are not obligated to actually do anything or stand up for themselves and if it is known that their rhetoric will result in zero action why would you bother listening to them in the first place?

> around the world and turned it into Empire.

I would argue the opposite. Wars have eroded US global power. Iran was the biggest regional winner in the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia the biggest loser. US has weakened its position in the Middle East and Eurasia. Saudis are dealing with China more openly and Turkey is more independent. Even Germany is now more openly pushing it's own agenda in relation to Russia.

>Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars.

International laws have changed a lot since WWII. Formal declarations of war (using the text 'declaration of war' in the bill) are not used anymore. There is no need to declare war if the war has UN authorization. If a country goes into war without UN authorization they can't do formal declaration without violating UN charter they have ratified.

If you look at the wars US has been involved since 2001, they are either wars authorized with UN resolution and funded by Congress or they are 'military engagements' authorized by Congress.

> but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire.

The US has been, and acted as, a global empire from the end of WWII, and a basically unrivaled one since the fall of the USSR. It is certainly not either of the most recent two administrations that did that.

> Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars.

I suspect you are mistakenly applying a "magic words" standard to Congress' Article I power to declare war, but if you don't identify which specific instances you are talking about, I can't really tell how much that explains.

I wouldn't give Reagan a pass either:

"...the bulk of U.S. foreign surveillance operations are governed not by acts of Congress, but by a 33-year-old executive order issued unilaterally by President Ronald Reagan."

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/29/new-documents-...

Actually, it's not Obama and Co. you should feel embarrassed for, it's the entire political establishment in the U.S. you should feel embarrassed about. This has been going on for years, it's just that it was all finally revealed to the public on Obama's watch. I applaud Snowden and Manning for their contributions to getting the truth out there, truly... but I don't blame Obama. If Snowden had gotten there sooner, it would've come out under Bush. If it had taken longer, it would've come out under the next president. You can't blame the current president for all the wrongs in your country, he didn't create most of them. He didn't set the ball rolling, he's really just playing with the cards he was dealt... and sure, he may suck as a president but he's not entirely to blame for your country's political woes.

Let's remember, there were people who were so upset with American foreign policy that in 2001 they were willing take a ridiculous amount of risk to stage a massive terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 8 years before Obama became president... on W's watch. But W. wasn't president until January 20, 2001, I would wager such an attack took far longer to plan than the 7 months and 22 days that Bush Jr. had been president. So it wasn't retaliation for anything he did either.

I'd like to believe that people don't just stage terrorist attacks for no reason. People [I really hope... I have to believe] are mostly good. When treated with respect and dignity, they don't just stage terrorist attacks on other nations.

That had nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy... you could perhaps argue it had little to do with W's... except that he's the son of Bush Sr. (so some influence there). The war on terror began on W's watch... but realistically it was his father who started shipping American troops en-masse to the middle east shortly before the Gulf War. If you recall, at the time, everyone was concerned that Bush Sr. was going to start another Vietnam... on the Middle East... which has now been turned into this Islam vs. the U.S. mess. [I would definitely be worried about what will happen if Jeb Bush becomes the 45th President of the United States - unless he wants his legacy to be coming in and cleaning up the rest of his family's mess.]

So should you feel embarrassed for Obama? I don't think so. He's not done much worse than his predecessors. He's just failed to clean up the mess he was left with. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure there's a single living person who could clean up the mess that is the U.S. political system without getting themselves assassinated in the process.

I wish along with what he uncovered, Snowden had uncovered who really killed Kennedy - or at least, who planned/commissioned it... and what really happened in Roswell? I mean, I'd really like to know are they telling the truth or not? If not, what really went on there? Is there a conspiracy? Was it covered up? Are all the people written off as crazy actually telling the truth? Having this constant is it true isn't it true is tedious. The evidence of conspiracy is sketchy at best, fabricated at worst, yet there is so much passion behind these "conspiracies" you have to wonder, is there any truth whatsoever to those fighting for them?

Given everything recently that shows there has been this conspiracy to spy on the masses that reaches to the very highest levels of government - you have to wonder, what else don't we know yet? You have to wonder, what has still yet to come to light?

This appeared mere days after Yahoo's security chief told NSA's new boss, Mike Rogers, that this is exactly what would happen if US, the "freedom loving country", would push for backdoors.

NSA's chief brushed it aside as a non-issue, saying "I'm sure we can find a legal framework" for backdoors to work.

Well, here's your "legal framework", America - from China. How do you like it now? Does taking your own medicine taste good?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJZNvEPyjlw

Interesting how he 'sharply criticises' while it is his desire, and to a point already an achievement, to do the same thing.

I disagree with Obama. Government computers have become national-security critical infrastructure. No reason for countries not to roll their own, if they can. It's one of the dimensions along which a country should be self-sufficient, along with food and defensive military capability.

How many ways can HN say hypocrite?

5 and counting.

This is a logical fallacy we always fall for: just because someone is a hypocrite, doesn't mean he's wrong!

Did China put out plans for NOT monitoring all of their citizen's communications? Because then the title of this story would make sense.

I have to mirror the general sentiment of most posters. Nationstate's criticising these measures are entitled to but in my opinion are committing an act of hypocrisy. At least I am entitled to that opinion I suppose. Even if it means I may be investigated for terrorism, without a warrant, behind my back. The audacity of criticism.

Classic case of pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps they consider themselves to beyond all the rules like they are in their own country. Given the standards they have set for themselves, they have to expect and deal with other countries trying to do the same.

Oh the irony.

"This is something that I’ve [p]raised directly with President Xi," Obama said.

It would be funny if it wasn't the fact that deranged, warmongering nuts like Obama run America.

Hm. I'm no particular fan of Obama, but warmonger? Why that? It's not like he started a war for false reasons or anything like that, right?

Continued wars. Drone strike killed an American citizen. Didn't close Guantanamo. Engaged in new wars. If all this had been done under a president named Bush the left would be outraged.

So killing people with drones and driving countries in civil war by that doesn't fall in this category?

I wouldn't call Obama a warmonger - after all, a lot of his efforts went into undoing his predecessor's work, getting the military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantling Guantanamo Bay, that kinda stuff. Any new operations started under his presidency were relatively small and in cooperation with other international armies in comparison.

Dismantling Guantanamo? Where have you been?

How many countries have we bombed? We are re-invading Iraq, we are still in Afghanistan, we are now meddling in Ukraine which is utterly insane. Much of the weaponry ISIS is using was supplied by America under Obama, the defense Budget has grown under Obama, what metric are you using to disagree?

For all the down voters how about using some facts instead of more emotional knee jerks.

Oh the irony.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com