What the World Can Learn from Hongkong [video](media.ccc.de)
media.ccc.de
What the World Can Learn from Hongkong [video]
https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10933-what_the_world_can_learn_from_hongkong
85 comments
There is a lesson here about the push for privacy laws. If you can't trust the government, why trust that they would uphold any law about your privacy? Privacy has to be established from a technological perspective - strong encryption, don't put information on the Internet if you don't want it compromised. Laws require a government that will respect them.
There has to be a multi-pronged approach. The central prong is organized public will, without which neither laws nor appropriate tech will be adopted. Governments may violate people's privacy in spite of laws, but without such laws governments will absolutely do so with impunity. Visible evidence of a government breaking its own laws to harm its people draws more citizens to the fight and helps move regime change forward. That being said, everyone should still use the strongest encryprion available for all communications, including boring and unremarkable communication.
When you have anti encryption laws, any effort for privacy is just farce.
This posts seems to assume laws and government are separate.
In reality, government makes the laws. They're an expression and codification of the ruler's will.
In reality, government makes the laws. They're an expression and codification of the ruler's will.
The quickest way to autocracy is pretending there's no difference between it and democracy.
This is civics 101: There is no "one ruler". There are parliaments, with multiple, opposing fractions. Then, there are administrations (te "executive branch"), which are separate. Then, also separate: the judiciary.
Of course you already knew that, yet you chose to double down on OP's cynical take declaring democracy dead and asking people to stop trying to save and/or improve it. Why vote, if law has no power? And, for the odd politician that happens not to be corrupt: why bother, when your constituents are just going to spit and yell conspiracy theories in your face, with absolutely no attention being paid to your actual work?
This is civics 101: There is no "one ruler". There are parliaments, with multiple, opposing fractions. Then, there are administrations (te "executive branch"), which are separate. Then, also separate: the judiciary.
Of course you already knew that, yet you chose to double down on OP's cynical take declaring democracy dead and asking people to stop trying to save and/or improve it. Why vote, if law has no power? And, for the odd politician that happens not to be corrupt: why bother, when your constituents are just going to spit and yell conspiracy theories in your face, with absolutely no attention being paid to your actual work?
That may have been true in the past, now it’s one more fiction. The real three powers are: the rich (which decide laws in the background), the politicians (gov+parliments that use the existing institutions to push laws decided by the rich) and the media (that create and drive public opinion and chose the politicians). The first two classes are not truly separated anymore, and one may pass from to another (best example is being France’s president Macron).
I guess the very detailed imaginary persona you've invented from my short post says something about you :)
There's more nuance to this. Take the UK, for example (if only because it's what I'm familiar with). The government, in recent times, attempted to create new laws and got shot down. New laws denied. It may be the case that government makes laws, but (in many places) they still need permission to do so.
Laws also survive governments; subsequent governments have at times tried to remove existing laws, and been shot down in the attempt. While there's a clear link twixt government and law, they're not (in many places) the same thing; they are separate.
Laws also survive governments; subsequent governments have at times tried to remove existing laws, and been shot down in the attempt. While there's a clear link twixt government and law, they're not (in many places) the same thing; they are separate.
Sorry, I should have been more precise.
I used "government" as meaning all branches of government as a whole. I don't disregard the advantages of dividing power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. That dilution of centralized power is important.
But at the end of the day, when the branches has come to agreement, it's still a sovereign entity that does whatever it wants.
I used "government" as meaning all branches of government as a whole. I don't disregard the advantages of dividing power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. That dilution of centralized power is important.
But at the end of the day, when the branches has come to agreement, it's still a sovereign entity that does whatever it wants.
That argument is trivially true for most any civil liberty: the promise of a fair trial is protected only by the next higher court's fairness, etc.
To categorical discount the value of the rule of law, and to apparently consider that idea to be so obvious that just about half a paragraph of argumentation is given for it, strikes me as... just scary?
There are quite a few established democracies that have seen steady improvements in civil rights over their existence. There have been setbacks, such as World War Two. And the last five to ten years may well be similar. But it's still obviously true that "the long arch of history bends towards justice".
And, fwiw, technology alone is not capable to guarantee any meaningful rights when your own government is your adversary. The internet was praised as the killer tool to empower the individual against censorship. And yet there still is no technology that makes accessing Wikipedia in Shanghai as easy as it is in Billings, Montana. Bitcoin was hailed (by the conspiracy-minded) as a tool to overthrow democratically-established institutions. But, as it turned out, regulators were far less interested in shutting down Bitcoin than expected, and did not even break a sweat implementing KYC nad similar regulation across the cryptocurrency universe when needed.
To categorical discount the value of the rule of law, and to apparently consider that idea to be so obvious that just about half a paragraph of argumentation is given for it, strikes me as... just scary?
There are quite a few established democracies that have seen steady improvements in civil rights over their existence. There have been setbacks, such as World War Two. And the last five to ten years may well be similar. But it's still obviously true that "the long arch of history bends towards justice".
And, fwiw, technology alone is not capable to guarantee any meaningful rights when your own government is your adversary. The internet was praised as the killer tool to empower the individual against censorship. And yet there still is no technology that makes accessing Wikipedia in Shanghai as easy as it is in Billings, Montana. Bitcoin was hailed (by the conspiracy-minded) as a tool to overthrow democratically-established institutions. But, as it turned out, regulators were far less interested in shutting down Bitcoin than expected, and did not even break a sweat implementing KYC nad similar regulation across the cryptocurrency universe when needed.
> There are quite a few established democracies that have seen steady improvements in civil rights over their existence. There have been setbacks, such as World War Two. And the last five to ten years may well be similar. But it's still obviously true that "the long arch of history bends towards justice".
I’d be interested for you to cite specific example of this. During the Cold War, the threat of the Soviet domination pushed some countries in the direction of greater equality and equanimity. But they seem uniformly in retreat following its collapse, and retreating on the basis of ever shoddier premises (first the War on Terror, now ethnonationalism). While it’s true that the ranks of the elite have diversified, the material reality and civil rights protections of almost everyone beneath them have worsened in many of these countries.
I’d be interested for you to cite specific example of this. During the Cold War, the threat of the Soviet domination pushed some countries in the direction of greater equality and equanimity. But they seem uniformly in retreat following its collapse, and retreating on the basis of ever shoddier premises (first the War on Terror, now ethnonationalism). While it’s true that the ranks of the elite have diversified, the material reality and civil rights protections of almost everyone beneath them have worsened in many of these countries.
Without the appropriate laws to go with them, technological solutions won't work. The state will just make strong encryption illegal, or force people to give up their passwords. Or simply start a propaganda campaign to limit adoption (anybody that uses encryption anyway is automatically suspicious, that makes the secret police's job much easier).
You could personally implement the best technical solution for privacy, and then one of your family will buy the newest phone and go to the hottest site to see cute cat videos, while the phone live-streams your surrounding to 3rd party servers.
And then you could rage about how these stupid people are ruining everything by not understanding privacy, but then again, "Stupid people are ruining my beautiful society!" has been a refrain since the days of Marx, probably earlier.
99% of people won't even understand PKI, ever. They have jobs and other things to worry about. You should structure your society with that assumption.
And then you could rage about how these stupid people are ruining everything by not understanding privacy, but then again, "Stupid people are ruining my beautiful society!" has been a refrain since the days of Marx, probably earlier.
99% of people won't even understand PKI, ever. They have jobs and other things to worry about. You should structure your society with that assumption.
[deleted]
Youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jobckq4USM
TBH myopic analysis that doesn't acknowledge subsequent protests from around the world have tried to incorporate HK tactics are getting crushed left and right. Military intervention, hundreds dead, media and internet black outs, to the utter indifference of western media or public sentiment. There's a slide acknowledging other protests at 1:25:30, "If you care any of these things, then you should care about it in more than one place". But we know this is demonstrably not true.
Operationally, there's not much to learn except that HK police and the mainland has been forced to be extremely lenient and permissible (by most relative standards) due to structural factors like HKs unique geopolitical position, the geographic strengths of a city state, or other political constraints that put comprehensive crackdown off the table for HK. The operational lessons, which this talk is about, will be clearer over the next few years. I surmise the the government will be able to exploit the massive data collection on the ground after things settle down. Retaliation will come in a variety of ways i.e. employment opportunities and other algorithmic biases. Multinationals in HK are already reluctant to hire locals because it may jeopardize their operations in the mainland (like Cathay).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jobckq4USM
TBH myopic analysis that doesn't acknowledge subsequent protests from around the world have tried to incorporate HK tactics are getting crushed left and right. Military intervention, hundreds dead, media and internet black outs, to the utter indifference of western media or public sentiment. There's a slide acknowledging other protests at 1:25:30, "If you care any of these things, then you should care about it in more than one place". But we know this is demonstrably not true.
Operationally, there's not much to learn except that HK police and the mainland has been forced to be extremely lenient and permissible (by most relative standards) due to structural factors like HKs unique geopolitical position, the geographic strengths of a city state, or other political constraints that put comprehensive crackdown off the table for HK. The operational lessons, which this talk is about, will be clearer over the next few years. I surmise the the government will be able to exploit the massive data collection on the ground after things settle down. Retaliation will come in a variety of ways i.e. employment opportunities and other algorithmic biases. Multinationals in HK are already reluctant to hire locals because it may jeopardize their operations in the mainland (like Cathay).
> I surmise the the government will be able to exploit the massive data collection on the ground after things settle down.
True, the deadliest enemies are invisible.
I bet that at this moment at least 10 universities in mainland China are using the massive surveillance data being collected (security cameras, phone location data, ...) to figure out how to track protestors back.
And even if there is no true leader, surely there are a bunch of people who are more lider-ish than the rest. Some networking analysis, like NSA pioneered surely can be applied here.
China has the time advantage, Hong Kong is not going anywhere. A brutal Chinese intervention would be the worse possible mistake for China to make, it will be hard for the West to ignore that. But keep the policing relatively low key, and the other countries don't have an in angle.
True, the deadliest enemies are invisible.
I bet that at this moment at least 10 universities in mainland China are using the massive surveillance data being collected (security cameras, phone location data, ...) to figure out how to track protestors back.
And even if there is no true leader, surely there are a bunch of people who are more lider-ish than the rest. Some networking analysis, like NSA pioneered surely can be applied here.
China has the time advantage, Hong Kong is not going anywhere. A brutal Chinese intervention would be the worse possible mistake for China to make, it will be hard for the West to ignore that. But keep the policing relatively low key, and the other countries don't have an in angle.
The operational tactics and technological tools China develops by experimenting on HK are probably going to be packaged and sold to foreign governments. If HK is pacified successfully, a few years later there'll be Chinese consultants selling their services around the world, and exhibit A of their marketing decks will be HK. This could be a massive cash cow that'll give China a high tech product they could sell that Western democracies can't or won't develop. In fact, they might even be customers. Imagine being able to maintain a veneer of democracy while using data analysis and surveillance to select dangerous individuals to disappear. Or passing laws to restrict the liberties of citizens secure in the knowledge that the resulting protest intensities can be predicted and managed.
I enjoyed the part where all the different types of protestor 'classes' were explained like it was a video game.
can't China gov just watch this and use it against the protesters?
This talk should also have a Mandarin translation.
Translations are contributed by volunteers: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2019/wiki/index.php/Static:Tr...
I don't think they usually add translations after the talk, but I guess they wouldn't outright reject it if someone provided a Mandarin translation.
I don't think they usually add translations after the talk, but I guess they wouldn't outright reject it if someone provided a Mandarin translation.
They did Chinese subtitles for some of the 35C3 talks, so I guess that one will get subtitles, too.
If you do know Mandarin, you can help out if you want to.
If you do know Mandarin, you can help out if you want to.
[deleted]
Fjolsvith(7)
Where's this girl from? Intrigued about the accent. Is it a German accent?
Somehow. Her grandfather was from Hongkong but she was born in Germany. As far as I know she has been living in Asia for a couple of years and studied in Oxford and at the MIT.
The lesson I learned from Hong Kong is you will never take the 2nd Amendment from me. Just come and try and take them. Take a cursory glance at what is going on in VA right now to know what is in store for you if you do.
I think that the protestors would lose local and international support the moment they started shooting. Most successful protest movement have tried to stay nonviolent.
This line of thinking never made sense to me.
How are you going to defend against SWAT teams with whatever guns you have?
Organize a militia? Then how do you defend against the army?
How are you going to defend against SWAT teams with whatever guns you have?
Organize a militia? Then how do you defend against the army?
We've run this experiment several times and gotten the same result every time. Hence the forever wars. Hillbillies with guns and IDEs have shown to be pretty effective against militaries.
By being willing to take significantly more casualties, usually because the fighters are ideologically motivated. If you want to be a martyr, keep your guns. How much do you want to bet you'll still be around to see that bright future you take up arms for? Or that once you win, the leaders of your rebellion won't toss you out onto the streets? If you want to stay alive, being a refugee is a much better bet.
The only reason being a refugee works is because places like America exist where everyone wants to go. You know, the place where everyone has guns...
Against foreign militaries.
Even if you are right, that would imply that the US would enter a protacted civil war that would impoverish everyone. I have a feeling popular support would swing away from the millitias very quickly, just how long do you think millenials will survive without their avocados, yoga classes and fair trade locally brewed artisanal beer.
Even if you are right, that would imply that the US would enter a protacted civil war that would impoverish everyone. I have a feeling popular support would swing away from the millitias very quickly, just how long do you think millenials will survive without their avocados, yoga classes and fair trade locally brewed artisanal beer.
> Against foreign militaries
I'm not sure why you started with this. Your odds are way better if it's against your own military, especially in the West. There's going to be a ton of defectors. Have you met anyone from the South? Those same people who are extremely anti government are usually vets. This isn't just speculation either, there's very clear examples.
But something people constantly forget is that you can't rule the dead. People are a resource. You need them to produce your economy, make your food, tax, etc. But there's also an argument here on the converse side, to make your people rich to make your ruling class even richer. But short term thinking...
I'm not sure why you started with this. Your odds are way better if it's against your own military, especially in the West. There's going to be a ton of defectors. Have you met anyone from the South? Those same people who are extremely anti government are usually vets. This isn't just speculation either, there's very clear examples.
But something people constantly forget is that you can't rule the dead. People are a resource. You need them to produce your economy, make your food, tax, etc. But there's also an argument here on the converse side, to make your people rich to make your ruling class even richer. But short term thinking...
Just take a look at what is happening in Virginia right now - police and veterans are siding with the militias in opposition to the incoming gun laws. I have a hard time believing that the men and women of the military would side with the government when the orders are to kill your neighbours.
Maybe in a failed state like California or New York, but that's not the entirety of America.
Maybe in a failed state like California or New York, but that's not the entirety of America.
one dude armed with pretty much any portable weapons is not gonna be able to hold out against police for too long. still, you read a lot of stories of one or two armed citizens who can resist arrest in their home for a couple days. in cases where there are more citizens resisting, this can go on a lot longer. the waco siege lasted 51 days. the police literally had to (or maybe just didn't care enough not to) drop bombs on a rowhouse to end the 1985 MOVE standoff.
a bunch of people with rifles inside a building can be pretty hard to deal with if the government isn't willing to level the place. a large scale revolt of armed citizens could never "win" against the us military, but the conflict wouldn't leave much left worth controlling.
decisions are made in the margins. it is much less risky for a government to impose unpopular laws on an unarmed populace.
a bunch of people with rifles inside a building can be pretty hard to deal with if the government isn't willing to level the place. a large scale revolt of armed citizens could never "win" against the us military, but the conflict wouldn't leave much left worth controlling.
decisions are made in the margins. it is much less risky for a government to impose unpopular laws on an unarmed populace.
How are we going to do that? That same way the rice farmers in Vietnam kicked the ass of the most powerful military in the world.
It wasn't rice farmers who took on the US. It was the battle hardened vietnamese army who fought imperial japan and then imperial france for many years. Also, even though they ultimately won, they didn't really kick ass. More than 4 million vietnamese died in the vietnam war. Less than 60 thousand americans died. It was one of the most lopsided bloodbaths in human history. That's with tons of sino-soviet military aid to the "rice farmers".
I don't agree with your premise, but for the sake of argument let's say that you're right and armed civilians have no chance of winning against an organized state military.
Don't people have the right to die trying to win their freedom?
Don't people have the right to die trying to win their freedom?
[deleted]
What the world can learn from Hongkong, is that overpopulation kills democracy. It is the same story, all over the world.
I really don't think that people in Hong Kong get their democracy taken away because there are too many people on the planet, or in the area around HK. Why do you believe that overpopulation is the cause?
[deleted]
It’s in French :(
It isn't. There is a German, a French and a English version of the talk online and the original Audio seems to be in English (note the gear icon on the lower right corner of the video).
The original talk was held in English, but there are translations in French and German available as well. Please have a look at the settings icon of the video, you can change the language of the talk there.
It's originally in English with German and French translations also available. You can use the cog icon to select a different stream if it defaults to the wrong one for you.
that the government is not your friend?
(That I can do even without understanding any German)
(That I can do even without understanding any German)
The talk was held in English. The website seems to push the wrong audio track in some cases but you can change that with the little gear icon at the bottom of the video.
If anyone has tips on how to build privacy-preserving social media without being marked a Nazi, a terrorist, a pedophile or a totally regular suicide I'm listening.
Edit: I'm totally serious, even Signal barely manages to exist, is blocked from federating for reasons of the preservation of the developers' personal safety and has publically been compared to the KKK by FBI officials. It's not a fun or bright situation but it is how things are right now.
Edit: I'm totally serious, even Signal barely manages to exist, is blocked from federating for reasons of the preservation of the developers' personal safety and has publically been compared to the KKK by FBI officials. It's not a fun or bright situation but it is how things are right now.
Maybe start by not conflating privacy with concerns about censorship.
Then, it'd be great if privacy-focussed platforms would show a commitment to find privacy- and freedom-preserving ways to tackle the very real problem of these platforms overflowing with actual, self-marking Nazis.
As an analogy: if the cryptocurrency community can find ways to curb problems such as scams or the waste of energy with technology, it can avoid the regulation to that effect it so much fears. But every time some cryptobro opines that people really deserve to be scammed if they did not go through each single line of source code their bitcoin wallet depended on, the idea that these communities are sticking up for some larger values and not feeling quite ok with scammers and Nazis loses a bit more of its legitimacy.
Then, it'd be great if privacy-focussed platforms would show a commitment to find privacy- and freedom-preserving ways to tackle the very real problem of these platforms overflowing with actual, self-marking Nazis.
As an analogy: if the cryptocurrency community can find ways to curb problems such as scams or the waste of energy with technology, it can avoid the regulation to that effect it so much fears. But every time some cryptobro opines that people really deserve to be scammed if they did not go through each single line of source code their bitcoin wallet depended on, the idea that these communities are sticking up for some larger values and not feeling quite ok with scammers and Nazis loses a bit more of its legitimacy.
It would really be great if privacy and anti-censorship advocates could solve the problem of extremism! Seems like a bit of a tall order, though.
What you're really proposing, IMO, is this:
Privacy and anti-censorship advocate (PA): I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we're trying to curb extremism by requiring messaging services to police their users. The problem is real, but the methods being used to address it are completely antithetical to the fundamental principles of free societies. I want to let people talk to each other on-line without anyone listening in on them or stopping them from saying whatever they want to say.
You: OK, you can do that if you can make sure no Nazis can use your service to further their agenda.
PA: That seems impossible, given the goals I've stated. Furthermore, this is precisely what I meant with "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
IOW, I don't think there's a technical solution to be found here. This is a fundamental ideological divide, and needs to be dealt with as such.
What you're really proposing, IMO, is this:
Privacy and anti-censorship advocate (PA): I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we're trying to curb extremism by requiring messaging services to police their users. The problem is real, but the methods being used to address it are completely antithetical to the fundamental principles of free societies. I want to let people talk to each other on-line without anyone listening in on them or stopping them from saying whatever they want to say.
You: OK, you can do that if you can make sure no Nazis can use your service to further their agenda.
PA: That seems impossible, given the goals I've stated. Furthermore, this is precisely what I meant with "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
IOW, I don't think there's a technical solution to be found here. This is a fundamental ideological divide, and needs to be dealt with as such.