It does not matter the history in terms of who belongs to what country .... is they want to be free, that’s a choice that all of us should respect.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WhatsApp Stops Processing Requests for User Data From Hong Kong Authorities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course its disguise as a security law, just look at Trump imposing tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel in the name of protecting US National Security, that does not mean security is the factor at play. Mainland China has used all the tricks in the [cheat]book to impose restrictions to commerce. Of course, for the Communist Party its also about censorship and repression of free speech and basic human rights. I didnt say there's not a "security" part to it, or that it was not part of a law, it very well is. The law of course works wonders.
I largely agree with this take. Countries use all sorts of excuses to achieve its goals. Disputes and different opinions are either resolved by horse trading or by multilateral agreements/rules. In the end, I think lots of these are not just black and white. Claiming a moral high ground is often based on one perspective and can seldom solve issues practically.
How did this work in the first place with end to end encryption?
How were these requests presented?
How were these requests presented?
I don't think that's accurate... there's not much censorship within North America, Europe, or Australia...
Whilst Hong Kong Island was given to the UK (I'm sure we asked very nicely for it /S) the mainland part of Hong Kong (Kowloon) was only ever leased for 99 years. Without the mainland part, the densely populated island could not possibly sustain itself. The bottom line, therefore, was there was no way it could stay in UK hands and thrive after Kowloon had to be given up under international law. The "50 year deal" is what was agreed in exchange for the UK returning the Island (the part people think of as Hong Kong). It was a good deal under the circumstances, given the UK really had no choice in the matter anyway. China could have just said "get lost" and that would have been that. For 20 years the agreement was honoured well, I believe, but most would argue it was only ever a matter of time.
WhatsApp backups to iCloud. iCloud backups are stored in china. China can just brute force the backups.
An ideal view that people take when they are far removed from the event. If closer at hand, they tend to be more nuanced. How about Sami independence? Catalan? Basque? Or why not any of the Indian reservations in the US? Why didn't Uncle Sam let the Confederate states go their own way?
As for Hongkong, those who want ”independence” are a little clique of mostly students. They do not represent Hongkong or its people, but are backed up by Western powers as a purely instrumental means to counter China. They don't give a damn about Hongkong and its people.
The agreement and Basic Law are still honored and upheld. The notion that Beijing is in breach of the agreement is silly, at best. LegCo failed to implement the law on their own, as Basic Law demands. They also failed to contain the riots, which went on unimpeded for more than a year, with students smashing private and public property, demolishing the subway, buses and railway, breaking into the parliament (!) and occupying and vandalizing it, setting people on fire and so on.
If just a fraction of that happend in America or England, we would see some very real police brutality. Capitol Hill being occupied by BLM or another radical group is just unthinkable.
Therefore, Beijing is in the right to implement the law, as laid out in Basic Law (article 18). It is an absolute necessity, because there is no future for Hongkong under constant chaos, with businesse and tourists abandoning the city. One country, two systems cannot be upheld if you do not honor the first of these premises, that of one country.
As for Hongkong, those who want ”independence” are a little clique of mostly students. They do not represent Hongkong or its people, but are backed up by Western powers as a purely instrumental means to counter China. They don't give a damn about Hongkong and its people.
[automerge]1594062775[/automerge]
The agreement and Basic Law are still honored and upheld. The notion that Beijing is in breach of the agreement is silly, at best. LegCo failed to implement the law on their own, as Basic Law demands. They also failed to contain the riots, which went on unimpeded for more than a year, with students smashing private and public property, demolishing the subway, buses and railway, breaking into the parliament (!) and occupying and vandalizing it, setting people on fire and so on.
If just a fraction of that happend in America or England, we would see some very real police brutality. Capitol Hill being occupied by BLM or another radical group is just unthinkable.
Therefore, Beijing is in the right to implement the law, as laid out in Basic Law (article 18). It is an absolute necessity, because there is no future for Hongkong under constant chaos, with businesse and tourists abandoning the city. One country, two systems cannot be upheld if you do not honor the first of these premises, that of one country.
Last edited:
That's my confusion as well. WhatsApp's statement appears to indicate that they have been complying. But if they cannot see messages because of encryption and they do not operate backup, they have no capability to comply. Would this suggest that either the statement is a PR stunt or they were lying about their end to end encryption?
I’m not saying the “security” part is actually legitimate. I’m simply saying that if companies are willing to comply when they operate there they are not prevented from entering the market.
I'd guess it's likely the latter: "they were lying about their end to end encryption".
The UK had no choice but to relinquish sovereignty of Hong Kong and give it back to China. In the early 80s, Prime Minister Thatcher was essentially threatened by the CCP leader at the time, with China stating they will invade Hong Kong and take it by force if UK did not give the island back to China.
The Chinese leader at the time said “I could walk in and take [Hong King] this afternoon", to which Thatcher replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like".
Last edited:
The thing is, CCP does not even have the treaty. It is still at Taiwan.
So CCP had basically taken the place by force.
Let's be realistic here, HK is a part of China. They have sovereign rights, as much as I don't like that's the foundation of modern states.
[automerge]1594071485[/automerge]
Effectively means we are not able to keep it.
[automerge]1594071595[/automerge]
Sounds a lot like CCP bulletin. Sure students always cause trouble, deal with them as they did in Tiananmen Sq.
[automerge]1594071719[/automerge]
China hasn't changed during that transition, no new state formed. They are still bound by the international treaties signed during Kuomintang era unless they revoke them etc.
Last edited:
Here is the thing though.Let's be realistic here, HK is a part of China. They have sovereign rights, as much as I don't like that's the foundation of modern states.
[automerge]1594071485[/automerge]
Effectively means we are not able to keep it.
[automerge]1594071595[/automerge]
Sounds a lot like CCP bulletin. Sure students always cause trouble, deal with them as they did in Tiananmen Sq.
[automerge]1594071719[/automerge]
China hasn't changed during that transition, no new state formed. They are still bound by the international treaties signed during Kuomintang era unless they revoke them etc.
CCP does not even qualify to be at the negotiation table with UK when they do not have the treaty on hand.
Let's use an example.
Person T owns a house with the title and rented it out to person B.
Person C beat up person T and Person T ran away with the title of the house.
Person C then went to negotiate with Person B for the return of the property.
False equivalency. Gotta love its abuse.
This one country you speak of is, you know, a communist dictatorship by any other name. One where protest is not allowed, people's rights are walked all over under "party" politics, nepotism, and rampant bribery behind the scenes in all aspects of life.
No wonder the students protesting that fact have realised not just their future, but that of their children's, is non-existent in such a one country.
They are the ones who are in a position to recognise and defend their rights under the two systems policy, regardless of others who sit-back and watch the chickens come home to roost. If you actually bothered to understand the agreement at handover, this was supposed to be honoured by the Chinese authorities, who instead of doing so are choosing to abandon said agreement in favour of mainland dictates they were not supposed to have imposed under said agreement.
But don't let facts get in the way of a the "bad protestors" dissuasion argument.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter, that logic not necessarily apply international relations. China can exert it's sovereignty whenever she wants regarding HK and it's not CCP, it's China.
Unfortunately, to do the above means they do business in NO PLACES on the planet currently being called Earth.
I'm writing my own e2ee chat app with smart clients and *really* dumb servers anyone can host. It's going to be simple for non-techies to use and coincidentally could spread like wildfire in a restricted place like China; you'd have to cut off the internet altogether to stop it. Not that that's my goal, just wanted to make something better and less centralized than what exists. In a time like this.
[automerge]1594084880[/automerge]
[automerge]1594084880[/automerge]
I wouldn't expect them to stand up to China if they had the same kind of stake there as Apple. Everyone in the US and Europe needs to stand together to stop the Chinese government, down to the consumer. If they gain the upper hand just cause we can't stop importing their crap, we deserve to lose.
Last edited:
I don't even think this practice screws one country. The trade imbalance thing seems like merely a way to fire up workers to vote for a presidential candidate. There's always a free market at the global scale, and within that market, one country has decided they don't want another's products. That's fine.
The West should isolate the Chinese government for other reasons, which are much simpler: They need us more than we need them, and they aren't our allies.
Last edited:
