US Surveillance vs. Chinese Firewalls: Why Domestic Political Operatives Scared More Than Foreign Powers
The collective consensus across the threads is one of total data distrust; people view data as unsafe regardless of whether the source is US or China.
The division centers on where the actual danger lies. Some commenters believe the biggest threat is the failure of established Western law, citing instances like 'stupid ideas like Chat Control' by mcv. However, others, notably artifex, argue that domestic US operatives and entities like Meta pose an immediate, more capable threat than foreign actors.
Pragmatically, many users now believe the risk from their own national political operatives is more acute than the risk from an adversarial foreign state. The general takeaway is that generalized data apathy reigns; no company—US, Chinese, or European—can be trusted with personal data.
Key Points
Data consent is meaningless because the public is ignorant of actual surveillance levels.
RedstoneValley claims the European polling on trust is flawed because citizens don't know about ad-based and IoT data collection.
US domestic actors represent a more immediate and capable threat than foreign governments.
artifex contends that US-based political operatives or Meta have greater damage potential than foreign state actors.
Ad-based surveillance and data harvesting are pervasive, rendering existing legal protections moot.
mcv notes that even strong laws like GDPR are vulnerable to being dismantled for 'competitiveness.'
Trust in any major tech custodian (US, China, EU) is completely absent.
Chippys_mittens states the mistrust is so universal that they distrust all three major power blocs.
The threat from adversarial foreign powers is arguably less controllable than domestic risks.
TheAlbatross argues Chinese firms cannot damage a foreigner to the same degree the US government targets its own citizens.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.