Well, not that shocked.
almost like all the shit the US flings at China, is actually projection
Parenti still kicking yellow-tinted badly mic'd goals.
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative.
If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them."
Perfect quote to show my not-quite-socialist radlib friends.
And the asshole they're quoting knows this, because he was general counsel for the fucking NSA.
Actually looks like comrade xi has the upper hand lol
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/22/china-us-data-intelligence-cybersecurity-xi-jinping/
:xi:
“I am beyond concerned — I am deeply alarmed — that China is moving forward with a so-called privacy standard,” Blumenthal said in a recent POLITICO Live interview, pointing to China’s hacking abilities as a major national security threat that’s been exacerbated by the lack of a U.S. privacy standard. “Because privacy protection is data protection, it is national security protection.”
is he saying its bad because now they can't spy on them?
For whatever reason, China watchers is the term that is generally used among journalists and political commentators. It probably started with guys like Henry Luce in the 1930s & 1940s (he profiled Chiang Kai Shek and his wife over a dozen times in Life magazine).
"...it of course, in typical fashion of Chinese law, has massive national security carve-outs,” Sacks said
I would really like to see the politico article that sources its opinions from NSA officials, then immediately argues that US privacy measures shouldn't have any exceptions for national security.
[ ] Yeah, but in America, those are abuses by a small number of people. In China, they're doing even worse with the endorsement of the government.
[ ] Yeah, but in America, the agencies are doing those things within the bounds of the authority given to them. In China, no one can limit the actions of their surveillance.✅ Select one (or both if you're feeling bold)
I love the trend of putting a negative emotion in unnatributed quotes to frame how you're supposed to read the headline. Just the most sheeplike of all possible ways to color how people receive news.
"Scared!" Other country does good thing
This article is much better.
https://www.protocol.com/china/china-privacy-laws-surpass-usa
Can't wait for some companies to blatantly violate the new law and be banned in China and for western outlets to claim it's China's strict digital authoritarianism rearing its ugly head again.
Instead of, oh, you know, the consequence for violating important privacy laws.
Picturing a 100 yard dash with one sprinter walking back toward the starting line and another walking toward the finish line. The spectators are in disbelief as that sprinter overtakes the first one.
One theory is that the language could give the government leverage when it requests access to data from private companies, which may try to push back on those asks if there is no clear legal justification.
The law “could, in a kind of backwards way, make it easier for those state organs to access the data, because now they can cite this law as part of their legal justification,”Apparently the evil, authoritarian Chinese government is currently stopped cold whenever a debate nerd questions whether their legal justification is explicit enough. It would be much more dangerous and Orwellian to give people explicit privacy protections, than to use the US approach of giving people no protections, ensuring that the private companies immediately roll over to any request they receive, and collecting any data they can get their hands on.
