this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
50 points (93.1% liked)

Privacy

2580 readers
346 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
fxomt@piefed.social
50
China’s government has announced that people will require IDs to go on the internet. For now this is voluntary, but there are signs it will not remain that way for long. (chinamediaproject.org)
submitted 2 days ago by Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/36106116

Archived

[...]

According to the measures, introduced by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), each internet user in China will be issued with a unique “web number,” or wanghao (网号), that is linked to their personal information. While these IDs are, according to the MPS notice, to be issued on a strictly voluntary basis through public service platforms, the government appears to have been working on this system for quite some time — and state media are strongly promoting it as a means of guaranteeing personal “information security” (信息安全). With big plans afoot for how these IDs will be deployed, one obvious question is whether these measures will remain voluntary.

[...]

The measures bring China one step closer to centralized control over how Chinese citizens access the internet. The Cybersecurity Law of 2017 merely stipulated that when registering an account on, say, social media, netizens must register their “personal information” (个人信息), also called “identifying information” (身份信息). That led to uneven interpretations by private companies of what information was required. Whereas some sites merely ask for your name and phone number, others also ask for your ID number — while still others, like Huawei’s cloud software, want your facial biometrics on top of it.

[...]

Beyond the key question of personal data security, there is the risk that the cyber ID system could work as an internet kill switch on each and every citizen. It might grant the central government the power to bar citizens from accessing the internet, simply by blocking their cyber ID. “The real purpose is to control people’s behavior on the Internet,” Lao Dongyan cautioned last year.

[...]

Take a closer look at state media coverage of the evolving cyber ID system and the expansion of its application seems a foregone conclusion — even extending to the offline world. Coverage by CCTV reported last month that it would make ID verification easier in many contexts. “In the future, it can be used in all the places where you need to show your ID card,” a professor at Tsinghua’s AI Institute said of the cyber ID. Imagine using your cyber ID in the future to board the train or access the expressway.

[...]

While Chinese state media emphasize the increased ease and security cyber IDs will bring, the underlying reality is more troubling. Chinese citizens may soon find themselves dependent on government-issued digital credentials for even the most basic freedoms — online and off.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] plyth@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Meanwhile the EU is creating consensus for an anonymous age verification infrastructure.

The social networks won't know the names of the users but the EU will be able to block people from accessing all social networks by blocking their age verification account.

It's essentially the same.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I hope that "anonymous" infrastructure uses blind signatures, right? Right?

Don't tell me it's just a state-run service having all your info, just hiding it from services on the Internet.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 6 hours ago

What good are blind signatures if the users of IP addresses are known? The bigger problem is that the state can block access to social networks for individual citizens.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not essentially the same, for the exact reason you describe: it's a way to provide proof of a specific piece of data without revealing all the rest. If we accept that governments (i.e. societies) have a right to enforce their laws, then this is the best possible way to do it.

More generally, as others point out and you must already know, there is nothing "essentially the same" about internet privacy in China vs Europe.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you can't verify your age you can't access those services. That's the same as

Chinese citizens may soon find themselves dependent on government-issued digital credentials for even the most basic freedoms

The thing that Europe cannot do is associate users to accounts in a convenient way. But everybody who doesn't use a VPN can be identified by their IP address and everybody else in the same way TOR users can be identified.

Add the planned access to messenger service E2E encryption as well as the planned huge military spending and we must be heading towards funny times.

Children can be protected by other means.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sure, that's all obviously true. But Europe's situation is still not "essentially the same as" China's.

Add the planned access to messenger service E2E encryption

This scenario I'm still sceptical about. It's so dumb, so technically illiterate, so futile at its declared purpose that I can't help thinking that a coalition of opponents including bit tech itself will mean it goes nowhere.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

It's, however, what was norm for European empires before 1914 and honestly interbellum. And for the Soviet union. People sometimes think it was more backwards than it really was.

It's possible to make E2EE a similarly rare or limited thing as handguns. Many risks will grow manifold, but it may still happen and the world will live on. With your children having no privacy whatsoever.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, that’s all obviously true. But Europe’s situation is still not “essentially the same as” China’s.

Of course, the law is not active yet. Once activated, what would be different?

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We're going round in circles. I already answered that: zero-knowledge-proof anonymity is, all else aside, better than the alternative.

My general point is (again...) that Europe’s (overall) situation is still not “essentially the same as” China’s.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

Why did you agree to my argument that they are essentially the same?

Sure, that’s all obviously true

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago

Something OP conveniently fails to point out is that in China, online ID verification is already mandatory. It just requires feeding your private details into social media sites manually.

Lao Dongyan (劳东燕), an outspoken law professor at Tsinghua University, questioned the government’s commitment to personal information protection by pointing out that the country’s billion plus internet users had already been obligated to surrender their personal information to hundreds of sites and apps as a condition of use. There is little hope of protecting this information, she said, if the bulk of it has already been relinquished to private interests.

So unlike US laws that will undeniably worsen privacy, this is a step sideways.

[–] kaeurenne@lemmy.kadaikupi.space -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

For me, it looks like the Chinese government is attempting to protect their citizens' data and information through government actions and trust. Nowadays, people and AI systems can easily mine data and, at the very least, claim it's fair use or something similar, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong; it's just my opinion. I'm trying to see positively what the Chinese government is trying to do instead of always viewing them negatively.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

For me, it looks like the Chinese government is attempting to protect their citizens’ data and information through government actions and trust.

This is exactly what China propagates - trust.

One thing that I personally find puzzling is the difference how things like that are framed when it comes to actions by the Chinese government and some Western governments or blocs like the EU. If, say, the EU seeks to introduce the so-called 'chat control' people are (rightfully) criticizing it as surveillance, Orwellian dystopia, and things like that. If China does it, it is to 'protect' people who 'trust' their government. What makes that really strange is that such "the West bad, China bad okay" frames are echoed often by non-Chinese people who know China at best as tourists. (I explicitly do not refer to your post here as I assume you commented in good faith, but in general this is what I observe.)

There is a good documentary about China's surveillance state and the 'trust' the governments propagates in this context. Maybe you can manage to watch (highly recommended).

Total Trust

Total Trust is an eye-opening and deeply disturbing story of surveillance technology, abuse of power and (self-)censorship that confronts us with what can happen when our privacy is ignored. Through the haunting stories of people in China who have been monitored, intimidated and even tortured, the film tells of the dangers of technology in the hands of unbridled power. Taking China as a mirror, Total Trust sounds an alarm about the increasing use of surveillance tools around the world – even by democratic governments like those in Europe. If this is the present, what is our future?

[Edit typo.]

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

That's because people are afraid and also want to deceive themselves. Finding some heaven somewhere else is the most natural reaction.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

I don't trust anyone with my information anywhere queerness is not both normalized and institutionally entrenched. Queerphobia must be as kuch a social faux pas as shouting the n word in times square was 15 years ago.

I have other criteria and reasons, but that rules out literally every place on earth that has ever asked me to identify myself.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m trying to see positively what the Chinese government is trying to do instead of always viewing them negatively.

In this community you're gonna be waiting a while!

But a couple of us are trying to address that, so keep coming back.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

@JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world

Don't worry, 'comrade,' there are communities here on Lemmy that are viewing China always positively and block anything that is even slightly critical of China.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Mea culpa. That post was cross-posted to the China community and I thought I was replying there.

In the Privacy community it is entirely appropriate to criticize China relentlessly. In the China community, it is not.

This is what you refuse to understand. I don't know if you care or not, but I agree with you about China's government. You will see that from my posts here and elsewhere.

But I also want these discussion forums to succeed. To attract new members, communities must stay on-topic and cover a variety of viewpoints about their subject.

The topic of that community is "China". It is not the "Communist Party of China" or "privacy".

By ignoring this, you're stopping that community from succeeding. And it's even worse than that: by helping to create an off-topic community frequented by a handful of members who already agree with you, you're ensuring that you reach nobody new, that you persuade nobody with your ideas (which, again, I agree with). Your wasting everyone else's time and your own too. It's sad and unnecessary.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

In the Privacy community it is entirely appropriate to criticize China relentlessly. In the China community, it is not.

In these .ml communities, China is always good with everything banned that is even slightly criticial of Beijing. It doesn't matter if it's 'China' or 'Privacy' or any other topic. If you want Lemmy to 'succeed', just start there. Here you are already reading unbiased, independent, and high-quality sources.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I've never denied that you post from generally reliable sources. The problem is the partiality. As you say explicitly here, you think that the cure to partiality in one community is partiality in another community.

That is the way information works in authoritarian societies - places like China and Russia. Truth does not exist so it's pointless looking for it. There's just propaganda on one side and propaganda on the other.

It won't work in free societies where people are accustomed to hearing different viewpoints. Sophisticated information consumers can easily detect efforts at manipulation. They will switch off and go elsewhere. IMO this one reason the China community is so empty. If you want to influence people, as you seem to do, the only way to do it is by trust. By convincing them that you're genuinely interested in finding the truth. That means posting some positive or neutral stories about China - because, after all, you don't really believe that nothing positive or neutral ever happens in China, do you?

Anyway, I've said enough for today. Others will judge for themselves. Once again, I agree with you about China's politics. But what you're trying to do by flooding that community with constant repetition of the same negative stories - it's not working, for the reasons just outlined. You're damaging this whole project and wasting your own time.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You (intentionally?) don't address what I have written.

In these .ml communities, China is always good with everything banned that is even slightly criticial of Beijing. It doesn't matter if it's 'China' or 'Privacy' or any other topic. If you want Lemmy to 'succeed', just start there so that 'people can here different viewpoints' also there.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Of course I addressed that:

As you say explicitly here, you think that the cure to partiality in one community is partiality in another community.

That is the way information works in authoritarian societies - places like China and Russia. Truth does not exist so it’s pointless looking for it. There’s just propaganda on one side and propaganda on the other.

You're helping to make the China community into the mirror image of what you so hate. The opposite of "no different viewpoints" is not "no different viewpoints on the other side". It's different viewpoints.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You are a hypocrite and don't address my comments again. This is waste of time.

Go to these .ml comms before criticising anything here.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Since you didn't read very closely, or perhaps at all, I will put it in simpler terms: two wrongs don't make a right.

You're not going to fix the bias problem in .ml communities by creating a bias problem in the China community.

[–] Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Here you read only news based on facts from reliable sources, nothing here is biased. The .ml comms intentionallly spread propaganda and propaganda only. But you are criticizing here, not there. This is hypocritical.

I end this discussion now.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Why do you keep talking about the .ml communities? It's irrelevant. We're not on an .ml community.

To repeat one last time: You’re not going to fix the problem you care about in .ml communities by creating a bias problem on Sopuli.