> But in context:
>
> - Australia has similar laws.
>
> - Snowden releases showed the US don’t even ask, they just take it.
>
> So it’s not like there is a huge amount of difference around the world.
I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like?
Snowdon case made the US government look bad, please don't use the same reason to make the Chinese Communist Party look good or OK.
It's kind weird when something bad happens, everyone just points at the US and says they do that too! The CCP did something bad, Somehow it's OK because the US government did something bad.
If you are an US national and living in the US, you can complain and bitch about your government all you want and not worrying about your safety, hence you can talk about the Snowdon case or berate the president, and things might change. Would you dare doing that in Chinese soil even if your are not Chinese.
No, I was pointing out the "Don't by Xiaomi because you can't trust them" is logically flawed... because you can't trust any of the countries involved with the manufacture of phones.
This isn't excusing the behaviour, it's pointing out that "privacy" is not a justification for not using Chinese goods, because American goods have evidence of exactly the same compromise.
> I am not familiar with Australia privacy law, could you give me a rough idea what is look like?
I assume it's the Australian Assistance and Access Bill that's being referred to here. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's prime job (which isn't hidden - it's spelt out in the explanatory notes) is to circumvent encryption by accessing the data at the end points, where it isn't encrypted. It must be unencrypted at the end points because humans can't read or listen to encrypted data. https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-...
The bill gives several government agencies the legal right to coerce any software company to "assist" them by writing a bug that is invisible to the OS. The "access" part gives them right to coerce a software company to distribute software to any device they target (there is legal oversight on who they can target).
To fill this out with a concrete example, they could compel Google to provide a version of the Android Google Keyboard that records all key strokes and the name of the application it is are sending them to. They can then force Google to install that keyboard via their auto update mechanism. Notice that using an open source program like Signal that securely and correctly encrypts everything, and comes from a trusted source is not a useful defence against this.
Both of these powers are accompanied by an automatic gag mechanism, meaning if Google revealed they were asked to do either of these things someone would go to jail. The provisions in the act for reporting when and where these powers are used, so the voters could have some say are to put it mildly weak.
Although Australia is very clearly a country that operates around "the rule of law", in the end the only difference that has made is we know they are doing it, whereas China could deny they are doing it. In reality, I don't think China tries to deny the Great Firewall of China, or the invasive probes they force citizens to install to support their social credits system.
So yeah in my view OP is quite correct. If there are differences they revolve around how widely these things are deployed, not over whether they exist. I presume my home country, Australia, deploys them a lot less, but they go to a great deal of trouble to ensure there is no way to be sure.
I am seeing this all the time. America is doing this too, why just blame China.
Yes, governments around the world have one thing in common, they are full of ASSHOLES. Actually, in general people are assholes. Bad things tend to happen.
You can have CNN and Fox broadcast different views somethings extreme, and many other media outlets expressing views somewhere between them. Try that in China, you would think twice if you are not even trying to PRAISE the government.
You cannot compare a demacracy to a authoritarian/dictatorship. They certainly always have something in common, the difference is level of oppression. The authoritarian are always on the extreme side, that's why they are called authoritarians.
Comparing demaracies to authoritarian is giving execuses to keep the oppressions going.
It's nice and necessary that you can criticize your government even in public. Don't give dictators execuses when your government pisses you off.
> most citizens would rather have whatever it takes to have no riots
Isn't it a brilliant tactic deployed by the regime, making people think that freedom of speech equals riot on the street. Like the USA is burning in hell with all the black live matters protest and the capitol protest/riot?
Every time this came up, I always insisted that it should be called booby tea. Because that's exact what Boba means, large breasts. That's a slang term meaning king of wave, because large breasts move in wave motion.
The pearl tea name came later, due to the vulgarness of it's predecessor I guess.
Now, you can enjoy more next time you suck on those sweet bouncy topioca.
This reminds me of this Japan only very technically impressive IBM palmtop PC110 from 1995. It's still amazing to see it in action (with side talking phone and fax!)
Your guess is pretty on the point. TSMC has been jokingly hailed as "The protector of the country" by the Taiwanese media. The chips have military significance for the USA, as it has been trying to avoid China made electronics in all (or most?) equipments.
I'm no expert on creating a CA. The changelog recently has an episode on Let's Encrypt. It covered a lot about how Let's Encrypt got started. Quiet an amazing job, I think you should listen to it or at least read the transcript.
Although I've been avoiding multiple exists, I don't think the the patten is that bad, just more of personal taste. However, I think it's import to let the readers of the function know what the function mainly do first, insead of the edge cases.
In functional thinking, it's actually very helpful to think of the edge cases and get them out of the way first. When put in coding, I like to think it's more helpful to let the readers know the purpose of the function first, they could dig deeper later if they choose to.
Well, he built the system, Emacs is the front end. It's just an awkward front end for most of the people, but with proper training, anyone can pick it up, it's not like ask them to maintain the system.
For new formulas, yeah, It's hard to input new formulas, even in spreadsheet. The system is somehow complex, you probably need a UI for new formulas too, even if it's in spreadsheet.
Honestly, I'm not so sure. Emacs isn't known to be user friendly, I can easily imagine many non-techies simply refusing (consciously or, more likely, unconsciously..) to learn it.
Turn on CUA mode to get the traditional shortcuts, don't hide the menu bar and toolbar - and now Emacs is being operated exactly the same as any other programmer's text editor out there.
The reputation of user unfriendliness is undue, and based mostly on looking at how pros work with it.
