this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
384 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59299 readers
4867 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can disagree about the definition of "backdoor access" all day, but you're still glossing over the context of the conversation, which is that the American tech listed above does not provide additional access to data that Chinese tech isn't also forced to comply to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is exactly what you wrote:

None of those companies give “backdoor access”. All information has to be obtained legally via a warrant.

I pointed out that legality is not part of the definition of "backdoor access", so the second part of your statement does not at all not support the first part so your entire argument in that post is unsupported.

I don't even disagree that "American tech listed above does not provide additional access to data that Chinese tech isn’t also forced to comply to" - sadly, the limits on the subversion of American tech for surveillance seems to be only technical (as Snowden's revelations abundantly showed, the Law is not the limiting factor for surveillance in the US), so American tech probably provides the exact same level of additional access to data as Chinese tech and should be treated with the same distrust.

However I merelly responde to that very specific, very assured statement you made, which is simply wrong in technical terms.