Hong Kong’s protesters use AirDrop to spread information to mainland visitors(qz.com)
qz.com
Hong Kong’s protesters use AirDrop to spread information to mainland visitors
https://qz.com/1660460/hong-kong-protesters-use-airdrop-to-breach-chinas-firewall/
119 comments
I've always wondered how dangerous it would be using those services in China, wouldn't the secret police come knocking if someone was found using them?
Isn't naming an anti censorship tool "streisand" similar to naming an anti-facism tool "hitler"?
Only if Hitler had tried but failed at fascism and inadvertently made people more free instead.
I mean... Hitler did fail in the end. Germany is certainly more free post Hitler than it was pre Hitler
> Hitler did fail in the end.
And yet Nazi flags fly in America, 50 years later. There was even a fascist parade in a prominent city in the last week.
(https://twitter.com/_SJPeace_/status/1137466984168329216?ref...)
And yet Nazi flags fly in America, 50 years later. There was even a fascist parade in a prominent city in the last week.
(https://twitter.com/_SJPeace_/status/1137466984168329216?ref...)
Not really. Streisand Effect is defined as "a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely."[0], so it seems to fit perfectly
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Sure. And the "Hitler Effect" is defined as "a phenomenon whereby an attempt to create a genocidal fascist government has the unintended consequence of uniting nations of the earth committed to the destruction of said government"
I was just pointing out the irony that an anti-censorship tool was named after a pro-censorship person
I was just pointing out the irony that an anti-censorship tool was named after a pro-censorship person
A bit of an exaggeration don't you think?
One unsuccessfully attempted to keep photos of their house private.
The other successfully orchestrated the murder of millions of people and brought about a war that engulfed most of the world with knock on effects for years to follow.
I don't think it's that similar.
The other successfully orchestrated the murder of millions of people and brought about a war that engulfed most of the world with knock on effects for years to follow.
I don't think it's that similar.
Please don't take HN threads on flamey tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Does it actually work from China? Their VPN blocking has gotten really good lately.
Essentially no. As yorwba points out in a sibling post the GFW is wise to the protocols being used.
Algo doesn't work either.
Or more accurately they don't work for long. The GFW slowly degrades the connection over the course of some minutes, making it unusable after a while. This then resets every day or so.
After a series of days or weeks the IP address associated with the server is completely blocked.
The situation with Shadowsocks has more or less been the same for me. I have been unable to have a reliable connection to blocked websites with either a self-hosted (on servers outside of China) Algo or Shadowsocks server. This has meant it is impractical to run your own server with circumvention software. As far as I can tell the way that VPN providers get around this in China is to just operate a huge fleet of IP addresses that rotate in as they are inevitably blocked and leave ones that get blocked out of rotation long enough so that they are no longer blocked.
I have heard that V2Ray is the new way to go if you want to set up your own way of getting around the GFW, but it looks rather complicated to set up. https://github.com/v2ray/v2ray-core
Basically the GFW is quite sophisticated these days and the usual solutions used outside of China don't work.
Algo doesn't work either.
Or more accurately they don't work for long. The GFW slowly degrades the connection over the course of some minutes, making it unusable after a while. This then resets every day or so.
After a series of days or weeks the IP address associated with the server is completely blocked.
The situation with Shadowsocks has more or less been the same for me. I have been unable to have a reliable connection to blocked websites with either a self-hosted (on servers outside of China) Algo or Shadowsocks server. This has meant it is impractical to run your own server with circumvention software. As far as I can tell the way that VPN providers get around this in China is to just operate a huge fleet of IP addresses that rotate in as they are inevitably blocked and leave ones that get blocked out of rotation long enough so that they are no longer blocked.
I have heard that V2Ray is the new way to go if you want to set up your own way of getting around the GFW, but it looks rather complicated to set up. https://github.com/v2ray/v2ray-core
Basically the GFW is quite sophisticated these days and the usual solutions used outside of China don't work.
Curious. I have a colleague who works from China a couple times a year and VPNs in to work (a well known US company) using Cisco AnyConnect[1] and tells me he's never had any trouble.
1. Which has an alternative open source client – http://www.infradead.org/openconnect/
1. Which has an alternative open source client – http://www.infradead.org/openconnect/
The GFW is likely sophisticated enough to make distinctions between corporate VPN connectivity using products like Cisco AnyConnect and personal use setups on AWS/DO/Azure/GC or even a home server.
One of the things I've wondered about, and I hope people more informed than me will forgive my ignorance, is whether it's possible to implement a VPN protocol that looks like ordinary HTTPS traffic. I know very little about the specific mechanics of network protocols so the very premise might be nonsensical but I would appreciate an explanation of why this might or might not be possible.
One of the things I've wondered about, and I hope people more informed than me will forgive my ignorance, is whether it's possible to implement a VPN protocol that looks like ordinary HTTPS traffic. I know very little about the specific mechanics of network protocols so the very premise might be nonsensical but I would appreciate an explanation of why this might or might not be possible.
OpenVPN was/is meant to "just be https traffic"
OpenVPN is based on SSL/TLS, which https also uses, but no, it wasn’t designed to look like https traffic.
For one thing, OpenVPN uses UDP on port 1194 by default due to technical issues running TCP over TCP. You can switch it to use TCP and run it on port 443, but the underlying VPN traffic usually doesn’t have the same pattern as a typical http connection so it is discernible from https via side-channel attacks. You can try obfuscating the traffic but my guess is that makes it look even less like https.
References:
- http://sites.inka.de/~W1011/devel/tcp-tcp.html
- https://wiki.wireshark.org/OpenVPN
- https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn/pull/3
- https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/TrafficObfuscatio...
- http://blog.zorinaq.com/my-experience-with-the-great-firewal...
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10905076
For one thing, OpenVPN uses UDP on port 1194 by default due to technical issues running TCP over TCP. You can switch it to use TCP and run it on port 443, but the underlying VPN traffic usually doesn’t have the same pattern as a typical http connection so it is discernible from https via side-channel attacks. You can try obfuscating the traffic but my guess is that makes it look even less like https.
References:
- http://sites.inka.de/~W1011/devel/tcp-tcp.html
- https://wiki.wireshark.org/OpenVPN
- https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn/pull/3
- https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/TrafficObfuscatio...
- http://blog.zorinaq.com/my-experience-with-the-great-firewal...
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10905076
Any source on how it is then distinguishable from https?
I don’t have a source, but they do traffic analysis to detect VPNs based on usage, not just protocol.
For example, ssh is not blocked. However, use ssh -D to proxy web traffic through your connection, and the whole connection will hang in short order.
For example, ssh is not blocked. However, use ssh -D to proxy web traffic through your connection, and the whole connection will hang in short order.
Corporations and other organizations can work with Chinese ISPs to have government approved VPN connections.
Experiences with the GFW is perhaps the starkest example of YMMV I've seen yet in the world of computing.
Experiences with the GFW is perhaps the starkest example of YMMV I've seen yet in the world of computing.
How about a SSH tunnel (e.g. using sshuttle) on a server you have access to?
The Great Firewall has been able to detect and block SSH tunneling for years now, probably already a decade.
they've been able to identify and block these 5 years ago
I use Streisand to spin up both Wireguard and Shadowsocks whenever I visit China and sustain a ~300KB/sec connection usually on both of them. Occasionally it'll drop out for a night, but it's generally fine by the next morning, without needing to cycle the destination IP. I'm not sure whether it's to do with my hotel's wifi or the VPN itself. I run it off a DigitalOcean or Vultr VPS, depending on which is working better at the time.
Last time I used it (Feb this year), Streisand wrapped Shadowsocks in simple-obfs, but it appears that the latest release now uses v2ray since May or so. I'll be testing it in a few weeks when I'm next back there.
Wireguard 'just worked' back then, too. Assuming Algo does Wireguard the same as Streisand, I've no reason to believe it wouldn't work regardless of the method you use to set it up.
Last time I used it (Feb this year), Streisand wrapped Shadowsocks in simple-obfs, but it appears that the latest release now uses v2ray since May or so. I'll be testing it in a few weeks when I'm next back there.
Wireguard 'just worked' back then, too. Assuming Algo does Wireguard the same as Streisand, I've no reason to believe it wouldn't work regardless of the method you use to set it up.
Oh that's fascinating. I just got back from China a couple of weeks ago after an extended stay. I had set up Algo and Shadowsocks separately on DigitalOcean and I wasn't able to sustain that kind of speed on them for more than a couple of minutes, even back in February (I kept trying off and on until about April and then gave up).
Interesting, I had no idea Streisand has a V2Ray option at this point. May have to give it another go.
Interesting, I had no idea Streisand has a V2Ray option at this point. May have to give it another go.
Some of the protocols supported by Streisand are basically useless because their packets are so easy to identify (OpenConnect and OpenVPN are definitely in that category), but I do know people successfully using Shadowsocks to circumvent the Great Firewall. They're not running their own servers, though.
GFW does not block all VPN protocols that are easy to identify. OpenConnect and OpenVPN are both easy to identify, but GFW interferes with the latter but not the former (for now).
Wireguard on AWS works for me.
There's also the Algo VPN project using Wireguard:
https://github.com/trailofbits/algo
https://github.com/trailofbits/algo
This reminds me of people who say that we can free North Koreans by (physically) airdropping tapes and books on Pyongyang - surely the only reason they support their government is because they're heavily censored, once they see the truth they'll rise up in arms!
It's a narrative that's somewhat condescending. It makes it seem like all these people are just being held hostage by their governments. The reality is that people in China or North Korea are like people everywhere else -- either they're deeply uninterested in politics, or they are, in which case they probably have a more sophisticated view of these issues than assumed. Some information freely available via VPN isn't going to change anyone's mind.
It's a narrative that's somewhat condescending. It makes it seem like all these people are just being held hostage by their governments. The reality is that people in China or North Korea are like people everywhere else -- either they're deeply uninterested in politics, or they are, in which case they probably have a more sophisticated view of these issues than assumed. Some information freely available via VPN isn't going to change anyone's mind.
If freely available information doesn't change peoples minds why do dictatorships try so hard to ban it?
That's not to say that any amount of information would cause the North Korean's to rise up into a (frankly suicidal) armed rebellion, but it will influence opinions inside the country.
That's not to say that any amount of information would cause the North Korean's to rise up into a (frankly suicidal) armed rebellion, but it will influence opinions inside the country.
I mean, we do physically drop in banned media.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/how-one-group-is-in...
Information spreads. Some people defect.
Whether this effort helps is hard to measure. That it's succeeding shows many people are interested and change is possible/desired.
Information spreads. Some people defect.
Whether this effort helps is hard to measure. That it's succeeding shows many people are interested and change is possible/desired.
I think the real reason that airdropping information into North Korea won't help is that it's a slave state held hostage by a ruling family that secures aid for itself with the threat of nuclear Armageddon and the immediate shelling of Seoul. But this is also the reason that the sophistication or lack thereof of their political belief systems is irrelevant: These are not participatory governments.
I would highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith for a reset of one's political expectations, especially for countries with resource extraction economies. The mechanics of selectorate theory can be very, very brutal.
I would highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith for a reset of one's political expectations, especially for countries with resource extraction economies. The mechanics of selectorate theory can be very, very brutal.
Most protesters never try to investigate the real thoughts of ordinary mainland people, who are just regarded as a stereotype of ignorance, impoliteness, nouveau riche, and pathetically waiting to be enlightened. Protesters know mainland people as little as, if not less than, ordinary mainland people know them. This is not a big deal in daily life, but could severely diminish the effect of the propaganda towards mainland visitors.
This comment is based on the peculiar notions that 1) it is possible to intimately understand the thoughts of over a billion people and 2) this understanding is necessary for propaganda to achieve its effect.
More importantly, it quietly dismisses the vast moral chasm between the CCP's propaganda and that of the protesters. One aims to restrict information (and spread misinformation) to advance the control of a state over its people, while the other aims to expose that restricted information to protect civil liberties.
More importantly, it quietly dismisses the vast moral chasm between the CCP's propaganda and that of the protesters. One aims to restrict information (and spread misinformation) to advance the control of a state over its people, while the other aims to expose that restricted information to protect civil liberties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is a political movement aiming at winning more support and allies from people of mainland China, and hence putting more pressure on the government. My comment just points out there are some negative factors for current organizers. They could have done better.
Information freedom is politically correct, but that doesn't mean tactics or investigation isn't important before conveying information to certain group of people to achieve a political goal practically.
Btw, CCP puts great stress on these two peculiar notions. Propaganda appears far more than restriction and misinformation.
Information freedom is politically correct, but that doesn't mean tactics or investigation isn't important before conveying information to certain group of people to achieve a political goal practically.
Btw, CCP puts great stress on these two peculiar notions. Propaganda appears far more than restriction and misinformation.
> They [the current organizers]could have done better
Interesting. Very specifically, how?
Interesting. Very specifically, how?
Some opinions of mine. Any criticism is welcome:
A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s. There were also multiple bloody riots crushed in the colonial history. It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Lastly, truth is powerful enough. There is no need to exaggerate the numbers.
A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s. There were also multiple bloody riots crushed in the colonial history. It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Lastly, truth is powerful enough. There is no need to exaggerate the numbers.
Thanks for voicing out your view, very much appreciated.
> A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think the version of the opposition as presented by the Chinese media is not the full picture.
Case in point: even though the court of Hong Kong would be involved in the extradition, they could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After all, Hong Kong does not have a near 100% conviction rate, showing the huge gap between going to court (prima facie) and conviction (guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
And the superiority in legal system in Hong Kong with respect to China is the independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution (for those who know, see 零八宪章 Charter 08 manifesto on constitution and 709大抓捕 709 crackdown), so that the law does not serve politics. Arguably, if and when China catch up on these two aspects, the opposition in Hong Kong would be much smaller.
> I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
For those who want a more thorough explanation, see the article by Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], a rough translation in [2]). This article likely does not fit into a leaflet, but thanks for suggesting to use this version for open-minded mainland people instead.
[1]: https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/反送中答問集-9841974d889c
[2]: https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR
> Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
Concerning stability, Hong Kongers are arguing that a proper legal system (independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution) and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability, and are one key issue underlying this protest.
Relatedly, note that storming local government and attacking police with bricks in protests also happen in China (and they sometimes turn cars over and set fire), but those do not get much media attention and are often censored (search for 群体抗暴事件). If mainland people do worry about such stability, those mass protests in China shows that what China is doing is not enough, and a better legal and political system is the key.
> As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s.
Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing [3]. Again, those “wellknown” as presented by Chinese media is not the full picture. These AirDrops are trying to counter the disinformation and censorship.
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
> It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Don’t know if it is related to the flag, but after the 1 July protest Britain just defended the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration concerning the autonomy of Hong Kong from Beijing’s influence [4]. It is hard to fit so much context into a small leaflet.
[4]: https://www.ft.com/content/429886f4-9cd1-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe...
> A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think the version of the opposition as presented by the Chinese media is not the full picture.
Case in point: even though the court of Hong Kong would be involved in the extradition, they could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After all, Hong Kong does not have a near 100% conviction rate, showing the huge gap between going to court (prima facie) and conviction (guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
And the superiority in legal system in Hong Kong with respect to China is the independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution (for those who know, see 零八宪章 Charter 08 manifesto on constitution and 709大抓捕 709 crackdown), so that the law does not serve politics. Arguably, if and when China catch up on these two aspects, the opposition in Hong Kong would be much smaller.
> I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
For those who want a more thorough explanation, see the article by Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], a rough translation in [2]). This article likely does not fit into a leaflet, but thanks for suggesting to use this version for open-minded mainland people instead.
[1]: https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/反送中答問集-9841974d889c
[2]: https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR
> Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
Concerning stability, Hong Kongers are arguing that a proper legal system (independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution) and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability, and are one key issue underlying this protest.
Relatedly, note that storming local government and attacking police with bricks in protests also happen in China (and they sometimes turn cars over and set fire), but those do not get much media attention and are often censored (search for 群体抗暴事件). If mainland people do worry about such stability, those mass protests in China shows that what China is doing is not enough, and a better legal and political system is the key.
> As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s.
Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing [3]. Again, those “wellknown” as presented by Chinese media is not the full picture. These AirDrops are trying to counter the disinformation and censorship.
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
> It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Don’t know if it is related to the flag, but after the 1 July protest Britain just defended the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration concerning the autonomy of Hong Kong from Beijing’s influence [4]. It is hard to fit so much context into a small leaflet.
[4]: https://www.ft.com/content/429886f4-9cd1-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe...
Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts. That's my core point.
> They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
> a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
>Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing
Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.
> They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
> a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
>Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing
Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.
> Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan
The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... specifically says this
"But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing"
Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time)
Also in your original post you said
> Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters
This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.
The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... specifically says this
"But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing"
Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time)
Also in your original post you said
> Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters
This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.
> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't?
I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.
> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.
It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.
I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.
> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.
It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.
OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this
"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:"
and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable.
> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions
It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.
> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland
As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).
OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this
"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:"
and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable.
> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions
It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.
> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland
As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).
> OK, so you accept it but reject it.
I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.
The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.
> I still don't
Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.
> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.
My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.
The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.
> I still don't
Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.
> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.
My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.
> > They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
> How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light.
On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese.
[1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/
[2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
[4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/
> I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think.
> > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
> Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.
> How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light.
On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese.
[1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/
[2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
[4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/
> I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think.
> > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
> Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.
Thanks for your view, but I beg to differ. Protestors are very interested in understanding how mainlanders think, and how to better convey the message of the protestors to mainlanders.
In one of the Hong Kong forum related to the protest, posts reflecting how mainlanders think got overwhelming upvotes (in Cantonese [1], [2], [3]).
As a matter of fact, those posts and their views hardly get mentioned in the press (local or foreign).
But if you have more to add, it would be very much appreciated.
[1]: https://lih.kg/1291046 "以一個大陸人的角度看向自由行宣傳"
[2]: https://lih.kg/1290746 "關於7/7遊行, 我有一個喺尖沙咀做服務業嘅朋友, 佢有啲嘢想講..."
[3]: https://lih.kg/1305083 "(開拓視野)看看大陸人真實既看法"
In one of the Hong Kong forum related to the protest, posts reflecting how mainlanders think got overwhelming upvotes (in Cantonese [1], [2], [3]).
As a matter of fact, those posts and their views hardly get mentioned in the press (local or foreign).
But if you have more to add, it would be very much appreciated.
[1]: https://lih.kg/1291046 "以一個大陸人的角度看向自由行宣傳"
[2]: https://lih.kg/1290746 "關於7/7遊行, 我有一個喺尖沙咀做服務業嘅朋友, 佢有啲嘢想講..."
[3]: https://lih.kg/1305083 "(開拓視野)看看大陸人真實既看法"
You're getting downvoted but I think it should be uncontroversial to say that mainland youth and HK youth have VASTLY different relationships to the CCP, and this particular propaganda doesn't seem to account for that. That's why I think it won't do much.
I still don't understand why the use of AirDrop is necessary. These Chinese tourists have already crossed into Hong Kong, a land that currently enjoys freedom of speech. Why aren't traditional methods like banners or brochures or flyers be distributed to tourists from the mainland? Is AirDrop faster and more effective?
Not everyone picks up fliers. They're also not anonymous.
What about airdropping across the river to Shenzhen? For that matter, what about setting up Gotennas for some communication?
No need. Shenzhen is probably the most VPN'ed city in China. Most of companies/universities have VPN connection(like the one i am using now...)
I was reading on Hacker News several years ago that the Chinese government was slowly winning the war on the VPNs. What's the story lately?
While it's purely anecdotical, in my experience vpns are blocked differently depending on where you are. It seems that vpns always work better in Shenzhen...
Maybe they figure people closer to HK are more aware of what goes on on the outside anyway, so they don't put in the effort to block?
Would love to see drone usage for sly data transfer here.
Nothing sly about drones - the area around the river is open on both sides, especially the HK side which is grass for easy observation of people trying to cross illegally (setup decades ago).
More sly would be people using OpenGarden to create a community linked by across the 'air gap' of river by powerful hubs on HK side and SZ side. That might actually work.
More sly would be people using OpenGarden to create a community linked by across the 'air gap' of river by powerful hubs on HK side and SZ side. That might actually work.
No idea if this is practical, but I wonder people living on either side of the river could set up some kind of laser-based point-to-point pipe that would be nearly undetectable unless you knew exactly where it was?
it might be easier to have some sort of point to point packet radio setup. Wouldn't be as fast, but would probably be more reliable and the infrastructure/tooling is already in place to do this.
There is, of course, a wide range of commercially available wireless ISP hardware, most of it made right there in China. It would be easy to set up many gigabit links.
But it’s very easy to detect and home in on radios and the government wouldn’t take kindly to it. Lasers have the advantage that they are hard to detect if you’re not in the beam.
But it’s very easy to detect and home in on radios and the government wouldn’t take kindly to it. Lasers have the advantage that they are hard to detect if you’re not in the beam.
This is fascinating and scary at the same time.
As we slide in a surveillance global system too busy to notice, Hong Kong is showing us the possible future of Western societies.
Maybe time to cancel extradition agreements with the US?
The only way to change things is to fight back legally. I've done so and if I'm pretty much the only one to bother the government or the press then nothing will happen.
My absolute frustration, and reason I'm close to giving up, is I see people posting warning of bad things to come, politically, ecologically, technically, but they do nothing. One person alone usually can't change much. A few can but even getting a few to do anything is nearly impossible. If everyone just wrote a single letter a year to their mp/representative/whatever, even just phoned up a business about excessive packaging, things would start to move.
It's in your hands basically.
My absolute frustration, and reason I'm close to giving up, is I see people posting warning of bad things to come, politically, ecologically, technically, but they do nothing. One person alone usually can't change much. A few can but even getting a few to do anything is nearly impossible. If everyone just wrote a single letter a year to their mp/representative/whatever, even just phoned up a business about excessive packaging, things would start to move.
It's in your hands basically.
is there any open source alternative to firechat (https://www.opengarden.com/firechat/), which seems to now require internet account creation prior to use?
something imbued with cryptography that communicates purely via local peer discovery/hopping such as wifi/bluetooth/optical signaling, etc.
something imbued with cryptography that communicates purely via local peer discovery/hopping such as wifi/bluetooth/optical signaling, etc.
This is one of the edge cases that makes me dislike Apple's walled garden. The Chinese gvt can simply request that Apple remove firechat and other decentralized chat apps from the App Store and that's that.
There is briar.
Manyverse (built on Secure Scuttlebutt: https://manyver.se) works over Bluetooth, WAN and WLAN, does not support direct messaging yet though.
I remember getting bluetooth spam in Chinese malls like 10 years ago.
Used to be near impossible to walk around with bluetooth on, then the popularity of Android and Iphone (both of which don't support obex or obex ftp) quickly drove popularity of spam devices to nil
Used to be near impossible to walk around with bluetooth on, then the popularity of Android and Iphone (both of which don't support obex or obex ftp) quickly drove popularity of spam devices to nil
Android has something similar (Nearby Notifications), which AFAIK uses BLE beacons (Eddystone). I saw one once at a nearby shopping mall, when I turned on Bluetooth just to see what's there (I normally keep Bluetooth disabled).
I knew a Panasonic guy who worked in Shenzhen. He worked on their Android phones.
I recall he was complaining how Google was vehemently opposed to any kind of "mainlining" IrDA support in Android. He says that Google was ok to support a semistandard API for IrDA just for the Japanese market under agreement that Panasonic would not market such phones outside Japan.
Panasonic laobans scratched their heads for a minute, and sput on that request, deciding to move with their own, self supported APIs.
I recall he was complaining how Google was vehemently opposed to any kind of "mainlining" IrDA support in Android. He says that Google was ok to support a semistandard API for IrDA just for the Japanese market under agreement that Panasonic would not market such phones outside Japan.
Panasonic laobans scratched their heads for a minute, and sput on that request, deciding to move with their own, self supported APIs.
And why did Google oppose it?
That's a mystery. Maybe because of the same reason they axed obex
I see several people discussing VPNs in the comments, but I'm surprised no one is mentioning Tor. Is Tor identified and blocked reliably by the great firewall, even with bridges?
(The Tor UI claims meek-azure works in China, is this not accurate?)
(The Tor UI claims meek-azure works in China, is this not accurate?)
Tor is identified and blocked reliably, whether using bridges, relays, or anything else.
The reality is that mainlanders want prosperity and stability over democracy. Unless protesters could prove there is a better way to bring prosperity, the propaganda efforts would be futile. It is not 1980s any more.
VPN would not help. I learnt about what happened to Tiananmen Square, but I also learnt there is CIA agents behind a lot of these incidences. Real world is complicated. Politics is pragmatic.
I do hope different countries could put their trifles aside and focus on the big picture as a specie. But it will be a long way. Too much pride, too much at stake. Power struggle is too deep in our genes.
VPN would not help. I learnt about what happened to Tiananmen Square, but I also learnt there is CIA agents behind a lot of these incidences. Real world is complicated. Politics is pragmatic.
I do hope different countries could put their trifles aside and focus on the big picture as a specie. But it will be a long way. Too much pride, too much at stake. Power struggle is too deep in our genes.
Would millions of minority citizens interned in "re-education" camps count as "trifles" in your estimation? Because a lot of people internationally are not fans of that, and it's hardly a matter of pride or power struggle. It's an authoritarian government mistreating its citizens without due cause. That's exactly what HK people are trying to prevent happening to them...
The old guard, many immigrated from the mainland, strive to one day democratize China. Hong Kong's youngsters say "screw that, let them keep their dictatorship, we just want to be left alone with the freedoms we've got"
The old guard, many immigrated from the mainland, strive to one day democratize China. Hong Kong's youngsters say "screw that, let them keep their dictatorship, we just want to be left alone with the freedoms we've got"
I fully understand your hatred towards the Chinese government.
I want to point out what I believe is the root cause. It has nothing to do with communism. Chinese has a deep rooted culture of long range thinking (think "Sun Tzu"). It has always been willing to sacrifice piece for the whole, sacrifice short term for the long term. We read those historical stories as we grow up. It is very scary at times, especially when you end up at the wrong side of the table and you are being sacrificed. This moral code probably is very different from yours. From your perspective, what happens in Xinjiang is severe violation of human rights; from those top guys' perspective, this is sacrificing the freedom of a minority for the stability and prosperity of a whole people. I am not saying I approve this policy as I certainly do not want to be those interned. And you might argue that this "long range thinking" is really servicing communism party's self interest. But your response demonstrates that the chasm is deep. And the chasm is on a cultural level and wont bridge easily.
What this trade war scares me the most is also related with this chasm - it is just so hard to transcend cultures and reach slightest bit of mutual understanding. For a while west thinks China could turn, but now it is really starting to realize there is fundamental difference. It is very scary to me. Like most people on this forum, I do not want to see any escalation in any form of conflict. I just want a peaceful globe and we could continue do our thing that occasionally crosses border.
And speaking of this Hong Kong protest, many Hong Kong friends disapprove it. I read WSj every day and there is no mentioning of what a normal Hong Kong resident think of it. In the end, what do you expect a 18 year old high school protester to understand in regards to what "democracy" mean? At that age, we easily aggrandize our self-righteousness and self-importance and are easily influenced. It is a matter of age. I think fundamentally what is driving such grievance is that Hong Kong is no longer as important as before. And younger generation see no hope. But this is simply inevitable capitalistic evolution. Smart young Hong Kong natives are now looking for opportunities in Beijing. This is the future and we have to embrace it.
I want to point out what I believe is the root cause. It has nothing to do with communism. Chinese has a deep rooted culture of long range thinking (think "Sun Tzu"). It has always been willing to sacrifice piece for the whole, sacrifice short term for the long term. We read those historical stories as we grow up. It is very scary at times, especially when you end up at the wrong side of the table and you are being sacrificed. This moral code probably is very different from yours. From your perspective, what happens in Xinjiang is severe violation of human rights; from those top guys' perspective, this is sacrificing the freedom of a minority for the stability and prosperity of a whole people. I am not saying I approve this policy as I certainly do not want to be those interned. And you might argue that this "long range thinking" is really servicing communism party's self interest. But your response demonstrates that the chasm is deep. And the chasm is on a cultural level and wont bridge easily.
What this trade war scares me the most is also related with this chasm - it is just so hard to transcend cultures and reach slightest bit of mutual understanding. For a while west thinks China could turn, but now it is really starting to realize there is fundamental difference. It is very scary to me. Like most people on this forum, I do not want to see any escalation in any form of conflict. I just want a peaceful globe and we could continue do our thing that occasionally crosses border.
And speaking of this Hong Kong protest, many Hong Kong friends disapprove it. I read WSj every day and there is no mentioning of what a normal Hong Kong resident think of it. In the end, what do you expect a 18 year old high school protester to understand in regards to what "democracy" mean? At that age, we easily aggrandize our self-righteousness and self-importance and are easily influenced. It is a matter of age. I think fundamentally what is driving such grievance is that Hong Kong is no longer as important as before. And younger generation see no hope. But this is simply inevitable capitalistic evolution. Smart young Hong Kong natives are now looking for opportunities in Beijing. This is the future and we have to embrace it.
Your dismissal of the protesters is so arrogant I'm struggling to think of a cogent response.
I've seen the argument by mainlanders often that these protests "don't represent the opinion of the people". You know what would reveal the opinion of the people? Universal suffrage and free choice of legco candidates, or Legco elections where the people could vote in a true majority (i.e. abolishing functional constituencies). Until then the only way people can make their voices heard is protest. And with two million on the street a few weeks ago, an unprecedented turnout as a share of population for any kind of protest anywhere in the world the opinion of "normal Hong Kong residents" is clear. But again, want to find out for real? Democratize HK and find out. But we all know what the result would be, including Beijing.
While a majority don't actively support storming LegCo or clashing with police, the majority definitely are against the extradition bill and further mainland encroachment, and they empathize with the protesters' intentions. That is abundantly clear.
Hong Kong is separated from China by a long period with a different value system. While mainlanders might be happy to sacrifice the minority (the "others") for stability—a preference well explained by turbulent Chinese history—the people of Hong Kong most firmly don't. And never will.
I don't hate the Chinese government, although I despise many of those in power there. Overall it's done well in modernizing the country and bringing people out of poverty. And they have done so in part by restricting civil liberties, some might say it's worth it. But interning millions of people or denying due process to dissidents is a red line for me. I cannot accept any justification for that.
I've seen the argument by mainlanders often that these protests "don't represent the opinion of the people". You know what would reveal the opinion of the people? Universal suffrage and free choice of legco candidates, or Legco elections where the people could vote in a true majority (i.e. abolishing functional constituencies). Until then the only way people can make their voices heard is protest. And with two million on the street a few weeks ago, an unprecedented turnout as a share of population for any kind of protest anywhere in the world the opinion of "normal Hong Kong residents" is clear. But again, want to find out for real? Democratize HK and find out. But we all know what the result would be, including Beijing.
While a majority don't actively support storming LegCo or clashing with police, the majority definitely are against the extradition bill and further mainland encroachment, and they empathize with the protesters' intentions. That is abundantly clear.
Hong Kong is separated from China by a long period with a different value system. While mainlanders might be happy to sacrifice the minority (the "others") for stability—a preference well explained by turbulent Chinese history—the people of Hong Kong most firmly don't. And never will.
I don't hate the Chinese government, although I despise many of those in power there. Overall it's done well in modernizing the country and bringing people out of poverty. And they have done so in part by restricting civil liberties, some might say it's worth it. But interning millions of people or denying due process to dissidents is a red line for me. I cannot accept any justification for that.
The CIA definitely was not behind Tiananmen square and there is no way it could be behind a two million person strong protest...
Conspiracy theory is one of the strongest forms of propaganda. Alex Jones is dumb but effective. It’s a slippery slope before you start blaming the Jews for everything.
Conspiracy theory is one of the strongest forms of propaganda. Alex Jones is dumb but effective. It’s a slippery slope before you start blaming the Jews for everything.
[deleted]
btw.. maybe this is a solution to the firewall... Just create a super cheap wifi device that has 64-256GB of storage and you can leave it 'open' so that people could use it as file storage caches.
Maybe some sort of web of trust to validate things like binary file integrity otherwise the state could inject malware.
Maybe some sort of web of trust to validate things like binary file integrity otherwise the state could inject malware.
That just centralizes and adds more vulnerability to the person who bought the device (vs something more ephemeral and software based where you have more plausible deniability).
In addition to fake news problem, real news problem.
airdrop is actually like a security hole when Apple set "open to everyone" by default.
There are already quite some cases using it to send * photos as sex harassment.
Apple should set default to "only contacts".
I'm pretty sure it defaults to contacts-only by default. At least it did on my devices bought in the UK.
This is fascinating. I actually started writing a scifi novel about zombies that had something similar called ripple. The state wasn't talking about the outbreak but the videos spread through ripple and people were freaked out.
Actually.. I was wrong. I called it 'Cast' and it was just a small part of the book. I wrote it back in 2013 but never published it.
....
The government tried to prevent the mainstream media from showing the pictures but with the Internet this was impossible.
At least until the Internet fell...
It was still all over Cast though. It was encrypted, onion routed, wireless, and distributed. Cast eventually destroyed all the social networks like Facebook and Twitter and left then in the dust like so many Friendsters.
Pictures and videos of small outbreaks spread over Cast like ripples in a vast pond. Except these were more like information tsunamis. They just kept coming.
You would bump a video and send it to your friends only to find another video a few moments later.
Something was happening and we all knew.
You don't expect the speed at first. You can't outrun them. My theory is that the virus evolved to spread through accelerated replication. A long life is not a problem so burning out the body isn't an issue.
When a virus first mutates into an effective form, and the host population is extensive, it’s usually fatal.
The only goal of a virus is replication. If it kills the host but can replicate faster then that’s the strategy that will be selected. Especially when there are plenty of hosts.
And that was the problem with humanity. There are billions of people on the Earth. Most of which live in the cities. None of which have any immunity to H.
Evolution is a bitch.
....
The government tried to prevent the mainstream media from showing the pictures but with the Internet this was impossible.
At least until the Internet fell...
It was still all over Cast though. It was encrypted, onion routed, wireless, and distributed. Cast eventually destroyed all the social networks like Facebook and Twitter and left then in the dust like so many Friendsters.
Pictures and videos of small outbreaks spread over Cast like ripples in a vast pond. Except these were more like information tsunamis. They just kept coming.
You would bump a video and send it to your friends only to find another video a few moments later.
Something was happening and we all knew.
You don't expect the speed at first. You can't outrun them. My theory is that the virus evolved to spread through accelerated replication. A long life is not a problem so burning out the body isn't an issue.
When a virus first mutates into an effective form, and the host population is extensive, it’s usually fatal.
The only goal of a virus is replication. If it kills the host but can replicate faster then that’s the strategy that will be selected. Especially when there are plenty of hosts.
And that was the problem with humanity. There are billions of people on the Earth. Most of which live in the cities. None of which have any immunity to H.
Evolution is a bitch.
I think they're all valid points worth debating but wrt this article's framing, the contents of the AirDrop don't seem to have anything to do with the Hong Kong protests. Infant milk powder, train ticket score etc could just as well be in random Falun Gong pamphlets you get in Chinatowns abroad.
At this point, I'm not even sure the protest (communist black helicopters will come pick you up to CCP black sites where you'll get waterboarded for criticizing China) has anything to with the thing being protested (extradition for crimes punishable under HK laws with 7+ years in prison (which criticizing China hopefully is not)), but that's a different story.
At this point, I'm not even sure the protest (communist black helicopters will come pick you up to CCP black sites where you'll get waterboarded for criticizing China) has anything to with the thing being protested (extradition for crimes punishable under HK laws with 7+ years in prison (which criticizing China hopefully is not)), but that's a different story.
> At this point, I'm not even sure the protest (communist black helicopters will come pick you up to CCP black sites where you'll get waterboarded for criticizing China) has anything to with the thing being protested (extradition for crimes punishable under HK laws with 7+ years in prison (which criticizing China hopefully is not)), but that's a different story.
Two points on this..
1) Hong Kong citizens have been kidnapped from Hong Kong to the mainland by the Chinese government, for working in a bookstore selling anti-mainland literature. This isn't some theoretical exercise, it's as real as it gets. The extradition law would to some extent legitimize the illegal breach of the two-systems policy.
2) Once in force, the HK gov could easily ram through the anti-sedition bill they've got in waiting or similar "national security" legislation, leaving people vulnerable to being extradited for speaking against the mainland. Second, Beijing is famous for revealing dissidents' "crimes" (real or often fake) committed on the mainland and demanding they be extradited there.
Two points on this..
1) Hong Kong citizens have been kidnapped from Hong Kong to the mainland by the Chinese government, for working in a bookstore selling anti-mainland literature. This isn't some theoretical exercise, it's as real as it gets. The extradition law would to some extent legitimize the illegal breach of the two-systems policy.
2) Once in force, the HK gov could easily ram through the anti-sedition bill they've got in waiting or similar "national security" legislation, leaving people vulnerable to being extradited for speaking against the mainland. Second, Beijing is famous for revealing dissidents' "crimes" (real or often fake) committed on the mainland and demanding they be extradited there.
Last article I read said the mainland had a 99% conviction rate. Anyone going over there isn't getting a fair trial. They'll just be canned and counted as some official's crime fighting spree no matter if they did it or not or whatever political purpose their bodies can be put to.
High conviction rate is not something unique to China - Canada and Japan are also at 97% and 99% respectively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher than that at 99.9% [1,2] and thought to be driven by political interference/corruption rather than only targeting high yield cases.
Bear in mind the context of china’s top court rejecting the notion of an independent judiciary [3], it is clear there is a difference between a high conviction rate in these countries and China.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/1... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/chinas-top-cou...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/1... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/chinas-top-cou...
>The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher
Actually, it's not over 10 times higher; I double checked, Japan's is also 99.9% and has been for some time.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...
Statistics from Wikipedia link: http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.j...
If you just take guilty/not guilty, the % is actually 99.98% in Japan (e.g. 2011, 77 Not Guilty, 432,050 Guilty)
Actually, it's not over 10 times higher; I double checked, Japan's is also 99.9% and has been for some time.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...
Statistics from Wikipedia link: http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.j...
If you just take guilty/not guilty, the % is actually 99.98% in Japan (e.g. 2011, 77 Not Guilty, 432,050 Guilty)
That’s interesting, thanks for the correction. That’s actually also concerning. Either they are are prosecuting enough people, and letting criminals go free, or the legal system is broken (or perhaps a huge cultural difference I’m missing). What is the point in hiring a defence lawyer if the chance of successful defence is so low? I can’t think of any test in my area of expertise (medicine) that has such a high success rate, meaning that false positives must be much too high for comfort.
The mainland conviction rate doesn't matter. It's about the HK criminal laws and whether the case in question was sentenced a 7 year prison term under HK law before extradition is even in question (if it's simultaneously a crime under the target country's law).
The above framing is missing a key point: after the “introduction” on milk powder, train ticket score, etc, the AirDrop contains the main message on the anti-extradition protest, which in the article is the content of second tweet by Aria Hangyu Chen for those who read Chinese.
The “introduction” is necessary, to show consequences that the rule by law in China is lacking independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution, so as to support opposing the extradition into China to face its inadequate legal system—that is, if the legal system in China is on par with elsewhere, there is less reason to oppose extradition into China.
Also, it is much harder to explain abstract concepts such as democracy and rule of law to mainlanders, given the heavy censorship and disinformation (e.g. those peaceful revolution such as Arabic Spring is staged by the US) in China, than to explain concrete examples that affect their daily life such as poisonous milk powder.
And in recent protests in July the focus on true democracy—universal suffrage for both the legislative council and the Chief Executive by 2022—is to address the root cause of all major protests (e.g. anti-national-security-law protest in 2003, anti-restricted-democracy umbrella protest in 2014, anti-extradition protest in 2019), where the government was trying to pass law despite strong opposition in public opinion to serve the interests of Beijing over Hong Kongers. Without addressing the root cause, the lack of accountable democracy, Hong Kongers need a big protest once every five years or so, which is not solving the problem. The focus on democracy in recent protest is to break this infinite loop, and is about the bigger picture.
To downvoters: please explain your rationale so we can have a civil conversation.
The “introduction” is necessary, to show consequences that the rule by law in China is lacking independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution, so as to support opposing the extradition into China to face its inadequate legal system—that is, if the legal system in China is on par with elsewhere, there is less reason to oppose extradition into China.
Also, it is much harder to explain abstract concepts such as democracy and rule of law to mainlanders, given the heavy censorship and disinformation (e.g. those peaceful revolution such as Arabic Spring is staged by the US) in China, than to explain concrete examples that affect their daily life such as poisonous milk powder.
And in recent protests in July the focus on true democracy—universal suffrage for both the legislative council and the Chief Executive by 2022—is to address the root cause of all major protests (e.g. anti-national-security-law protest in 2003, anti-restricted-democracy umbrella protest in 2014, anti-extradition protest in 2019), where the government was trying to pass law despite strong opposition in public opinion to serve the interests of Beijing over Hong Kongers. Without addressing the root cause, the lack of accountable democracy, Hong Kongers need a big protest once every five years or so, which is not solving the problem. The focus on democracy in recent protest is to break this infinite loop, and is about the bigger picture.
To downvoters: please explain your rationale so we can have a civil conversation.
Seems like a click bait article, there's no China firewall in Hong Kong and plenty of free Wifi spots.
You think mainlanders cross the border into Hong Kong and suddenly have a new found knowledge of where to look for uncensored information? Or that they suddenly have tons of friends to contact and discuss the news with on WhatsApp or Telegram?
A large majority of the tourists crossing the border in this train station have virtually no idea of the protests. If they do know about the protests, they've likely only read the articles posted by the CCP stating that some of the protests were in favour of the Extradition Law, blaming foreign influences among other lies. There are no articles that depict the protests for what they actually are or what they are fighting for.
A large majority of the tourists crossing the border in this train station have virtually no idea of the protests. If they do know about the protests, they've likely only read the articles posted by the CCP stating that some of the protests were in favour of the Extradition Law, blaming foreign influences among other lies. There are no articles that depict the protests for what they actually are or what they are fighting for.
Ok, we've taken the firewall out of the title above.
FWIW the “Great Firewall of China” is indeed the technical implementation of itself, but he also become synonymous with government censorship in China in general.
Just because mainland citizens leave the country does not mean that they leave behind the lasting influence of that censorship, especially since the most-used apps from China, like WeChat remain filtered and censored, so I think the title is quite a fair summary and not just click bait.
Just because mainland citizens leave the country does not mean that they leave behind the lasting influence of that censorship, especially since the most-used apps from China, like WeChat remain filtered and censored, so I think the title is quite a fair summary and not just click bait.
"Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop" seems a drastic redaction. It would be helpful to know _what_ they're using AirDrop for.
How about "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to spread their message to Mainland tourists"? "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to inform tourists why they protest"?
How about "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to spread their message to Mainland tourists"? "Hong Kong's protesters use AirDrop to inform tourists why they protest"?
Ok, we've added an extra phrase from the main text that conveys this.
Thanks, appreciate you taking the time! :)
How does mobile roaming for mainland Chinese visiting HK work? Are they put on a different VNET which still experiences censorship? After all HK phone providers could have secret agreements to enforce the GFW filtering (redirect traffic through China etc) for Chinese citizens.
When I visit mainland China on my T-Mobile roaming plan I am on some sort of separate subnet that is uncensored and I can continue to access services I cannot use with a China SIM card.
When I visit mainland China on my T-Mobile roaming plan I am on some sort of separate subnet that is uncensored and I can continue to access services I cannot use with a China SIM card.
Most visitors from mainland China are people who also own iPhones. Until the X models the iPhone did not support multiple SIM cards so visitors would buy local HK prepaid cards which means they are on HK uncensored phone systems and networks.
If you are on mainland number with roaming or even a second local HK number attached to your China SIM card you are still subject to censorship because everything data goes back through mainland servers even though your access points are in HK.
All the above I know from personal experience - lived in China 12 years and now resident in HK.
If you are on mainland number with roaming or even a second local HK number attached to your China SIM card you are still subject to censorship because everything data goes back through mainland servers even though your access points are in HK.
All the above I know from personal experience - lived in China 12 years and now resident in HK.
Um, Hong Kong is OUTSIDE the Chinese firewall (for now)
More likely they are doing this to preserve anonymity
More likely they are doing this to preserve anonymity
As I already wrote, if things like FB, Google, WhatsApp etc. are all blocked and most Western news sites are blocked/censored...will you suddenly know they exist because you crossed the border and go scour them for news about these protests...?
You cross the border and, to your surprise, see 250k+ people protesting about freedom. You search Baidu for HK protests as that's your go-to search engine and all you know. What do you think you'll find...?
You cross the border and, to your surprise, see 250k+ people protesting about freedom. You search Baidu for HK protests as that's your go-to search engine and all you know. What do you think you'll find...?
Similar to how USB was used to overcome the airgap by Stuxnet. Flow of visitors to HK and back to the mainland means information gets past the firewall. Those people can pass the files on via the same method.
The article says it's to share news with tourists in HK, who would have previously been behind the firewall.
> But news of the protest has been heavily censored in mainland China, with any mention of the mass movement wiped off the Chinese internet.
> Hong Kong’s protesters have therefore turned to Apple’s AirDrop feature to get their message across to their mainland Chinese compatriots. That the messages are written in simplified Chinese—Hong Kongers use traditional Chinese—confirm that the intended audience is Chinese tourists.
> But news of the protest has been heavily censored in mainland China, with any mention of the mass movement wiped off the Chinese internet.
> Hong Kong’s protesters have therefore turned to Apple’s AirDrop feature to get their message across to their mainland Chinese compatriots. That the messages are written in simplified Chinese—Hong Kongers use traditional Chinese—confirm that the intended audience is Chinese tourists.
This is about protesters subverting the purpose of the firewall, not a technical loophole. Tourists from mainland China might not know about the protests, because of the firewall. Protestors are using AirDrop to directly deliver photos and information to the tourists, which is probably much more effective than physical posters that people can ignore or rip down.
Question--could a directional wifi antenna be used (plus amplification) to AirDrop things from HK across the border into Shenzhen?
On that note, I stayed at an international hotel chain on the Shenzhen side's border that had terribly slow but unfiltered internet. Google.com auto-redirected to Google.hk. I always wondered if they used a VPN or maintained a covert internet beam from across the river...
EDIT: Derp--another comment already posted this question.
On that note, I stayed at an international hotel chain on the Shenzhen side's border that had terribly slow but unfiltered internet. Google.com auto-redirected to Google.hk. I always wondered if they used a VPN or maintained a covert internet beam from across the river...
EDIT: Derp--another comment already posted this question.
If it's an international chain they likely have VPN set up at the edge, and have licences allowing their VPN connection filed with the party
Visitors from mainland China still mostly use popular apps that is censored no matter they are inside or outside the mainland, like WeChat.
https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand