South Korea provokes teenage smartphone privacy row(bbc.com)
bbc.com
South Korea provokes teenage smartphone privacy row
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33091990?OCID=fbasia&ocid=socialflow_facebook
46 comments
> (this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)
Different strategies. Also, the DPRK made a number of big mistakes which doomed its economy, and much of its economic output is immediately spent on bribes.
> This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society.
It's not the only "democratic" East Asian country. I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.
Different strategies. Also, the DPRK made a number of big mistakes which doomed its economy, and much of its economic output is immediately spent on bribes.
> This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society.
It's not the only "democratic" East Asian country. I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.
I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.
Singapore is a de-facto one party state where it is notable when an opposition party wins any seats whatsoever in the legislature. Three of Japan's last four prime ministers were from the Democratic Party of Japan, which is not the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the "same party" you're thinking of. The Japanese government, for all its numerous faults, runs hotly contested elections on a more-than-regular basis which can, and do, result in "voting the bums out."
Whether they have "democratic efficacy" is a bit more of an open question -- some observers of Japanese politics might opine that it is a rare, rare Japanese government where the legislature or prime minister exercise proximate control of the levers of sociopolitical power.
Singapore is a de-facto one party state where it is notable when an opposition party wins any seats whatsoever in the legislature. Three of Japan's last four prime ministers were from the Democratic Party of Japan, which is not the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the "same party" you're thinking of. The Japanese government, for all its numerous faults, runs hotly contested elections on a more-than-regular basis which can, and do, result in "voting the bums out."
Whether they have "democratic efficacy" is a bit more of an open question -- some observers of Japanese politics might opine that it is a rare, rare Japanese government where the legislature or prime minister exercise proximate control of the levers of sociopolitical power.
>this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same
Because communism doesn't scale, doesn't really work past the stage of moving farmers into factories, and can only be implemented via punishing human rights violations that keep people from asserting their basic rights of property, prosperity, petitioning the government, changing leadership, etc.
A South Korean "strongman" is pretty weak sauce compared to a communist strongman. Chung-hee held back democratic reforms and was an autocrat. The Jong-un dynasty has sent tens of millions of people to starvation, labor, and death camps, including children, mostly for political reasons. These things are not remotely comparable.
Because communism doesn't scale, doesn't really work past the stage of moving farmers into factories, and can only be implemented via punishing human rights violations that keep people from asserting their basic rights of property, prosperity, petitioning the government, changing leadership, etc.
A South Korean "strongman" is pretty weak sauce compared to a communist strongman. Chung-hee held back democratic reforms and was an autocrat. The Jong-un dynasty has sent tens of millions of people to starvation, labor, and death camps, including children, mostly for political reasons. These things are not remotely comparable.
(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)
Presumably the continuation of the proxy war; the US would have been a lot more open to South Korea.
Presumably the continuation of the proxy war; the US would have been a lot more open to South Korea.
Gee, maybe instead that communism has been proven to be a economic, political, and human rights disaster? Oh right, of course not. Its the US's fault that broken ideology doesn't work, right? Communists never get judged by history it seems, at least on HN.
Is there anything in your mind that isn't the US's fault?
Is there anything in your mind that isn't the US's fault?
You've read an awful lot into that comment that wasn't there. As the original comment points out, in the period from WW2 to 1987 South Korea was also a dictatorship. The early industrial development was state-owned industry.
Neither North nor South Korea had endogenous political development, and indeed North Korea is the last holdout of Soviet-style centralised power while South Korea has been heavily influenced by the US in is development. You might say it's been a "brutal success"; it has the economic development and seemingly everyone gets fed, but lacks political freedom. The US had a seemingly positive influence that was not available to North Korea; this is not a case of the US's "fault", not a result of active sabotage (unlike several countries in South America).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171
"Behind the stellar growth were sacrifices by workers who suffered under a repressive labour environment," she said.
"Behind the efforts for national security to protect (ourselves) from North Korea were human rights abuses committed by state power."
Neither North nor South Korea had endogenous political development, and indeed North Korea is the last holdout of Soviet-style centralised power while South Korea has been heavily influenced by the US in is development. You might say it's been a "brutal success"; it has the economic development and seemingly everyone gets fed, but lacks political freedom. The US had a seemingly positive influence that was not available to North Korea; this is not a case of the US's "fault", not a result of active sabotage (unlike several countries in South America).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19697171
"Behind the stellar growth were sacrifices by workers who suffered under a repressive labour environment," she said.
"Behind the efforts for national security to protect (ourselves) from North Korea were human rights abuses committed by state power."
Humans are prone to the irrational assumption that fault is a rivalrous good, so everything must be the fault of A xor B.
It seems to me the evidence supports the conclusion that communism is a miserable failure and the idiotic policy of trade sanctions and other forms of antagonism makes an already bad situation considerably worse.
It seems to me the evidence supports the conclusion that communism is a miserable failure and the idiotic policy of trade sanctions and other forms of antagonism makes an already bad situation considerably worse.
I was mortified when I heard of 'surprise phone checks': parents have their child walk them through every single piece of content and app on the phone.
I know someone who found that their 12 year old daughter had found a much older out-of-state admirer who was going to drive out to pick her up. She had been sending explicit pictures of herself. She no longer has a smartphone.
As a child, I would not have responded well to this invasion of my privacy. Perhaps if the electronics are given to them with no expectation, it would not be as bad. It would also help prepare them for our future totalitarian regime.
PS: Any parents reading this, the app in question was Kik, noted for its prevalence of pedophiles, but there are certainly alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kik_Messenger#Controversy
I know someone who found that their 12 year old daughter had found a much older out-of-state admirer who was going to drive out to pick her up. She had been sending explicit pictures of herself. She no longer has a smartphone.
As a child, I would not have responded well to this invasion of my privacy. Perhaps if the electronics are given to them with no expectation, it would not be as bad. It would also help prepare them for our future totalitarian regime.
PS: Any parents reading this, the app in question was Kik, noted for its prevalence of pedophiles, but there are certainly alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kik_Messenger#Controversy
Honestly, this sounds like the South Korean governments version of Superfish:
"Parents will be able to to see what their kids are up to online and block access to "undesirable" sites."
Given any number of browsers could be installed on the phone, I'm thinking there's a high likelihood this could be a proxy based solution since that would be the simplest approach. While such approaches to nanny guards aren't necessarily inherently broken, there are some real-world difficulties that make the design and implementation hard to secure. I hope they had a really good security review.
"Parents will be able to to see what their kids are up to online and block access to "undesirable" sites."
Given any number of browsers could be installed on the phone, I'm thinking there's a high likelihood this could be a proxy based solution since that would be the simplest approach. While such approaches to nanny guards aren't necessarily inherently broken, there are some real-world difficulties that make the design and implementation hard to secure. I hope they had a really good security review.
My kid sister and all her friends use Kik. I've had a blunt conversation with her about technology in general, but she is probably the only one in her peer group who has had such a conversation.
That said, the 'controversy' section is an interview with two people. I could say the same about any app being used by children; if you know how to manipulate people and children use it, you can find children seeking validation that will do just about anything for it. Is there any actual reason that Kik is worse than normal technology?
That said, the 'controversy' section is an interview with two people. I could say the same about any app being used by children; if you know how to manipulate people and children use it, you can find children seeking validation that will do just about anything for it. Is there any actual reason that Kik is worse than normal technology?
To be fair: two separate interviews with pedophiles, 5 separate news reports including police warnings, and my personal experience with it.
We're in agreement though - this can happen on any platform, and we essentially only have anecdotal evidence that it may be worse on Kik, but it's definitely one of the apps I would check with an at-risk youth. It's easy to lose track of all the newfangled apps kids are using these days.
Your approach is ideal with a child you can have an open dialog with.
We're in agreement though - this can happen on any platform, and we essentially only have anecdotal evidence that it may be worse on Kik, but it's definitely one of the apps I would check with an at-risk youth. It's easy to lose track of all the newfangled apps kids are using these days.
Your approach is ideal with a child you can have an open dialog with.
>It's easy to lose track of all the newfangled apps kids are using these days.
I dare say it is impossible to not lose track.
Even I, far more connected in the IT world than the average adult, often lose track. The average parent has no hope. And what is the alternative: preventing your child from using the internet?
As far as checking the apps, that works when the child is being careless; but many apps offer you ways to delete conversations and hide contacts.
>Your approach is ideal with a child you can have an open dialog with.
It is also quite rare, and when it does happen it is far later than it should be. Too many parents are willing to give their 9 year old a smartphone but are too embarrassed to even discuss the most basic sex related topics. Covering topics like porn, sexting, and predators isn't even a possibility. Even in my case, I have to discuss it because our parents aren't willing to.
I dare say it is impossible to not lose track.
Even I, far more connected in the IT world than the average adult, often lose track. The average parent has no hope. And what is the alternative: preventing your child from using the internet?
As far as checking the apps, that works when the child is being careless; but many apps offer you ways to delete conversations and hide contacts.
>Your approach is ideal with a child you can have an open dialog with.
It is also quite rare, and when it does happen it is far later than it should be. Too many parents are willing to give their 9 year old a smartphone but are too embarrassed to even discuss the most basic sex related topics. Covering topics like porn, sexting, and predators isn't even a possibility. Even in my case, I have to discuss it because our parents aren't willing to.
I frankly don't understand why people get so worked up about kids and the internet. I definitely watched plenty of online porn when I was kid. I spent lots of time on IRC, chat rooms, vent, forums, and in games talking to and playing with people who were significantly older than me. I had a great time, at no point was I "in danger", I was able to explore issues and questions I had in private, and I found the experience to be a great way to learn and interact with adults on a more equal footing. I think the only time kids can get into trouble is when they intentionally reveal their identity. As long as everyone remains anon, I think the internet is a perfectly safe place for kids on the whole.
I absolutely agree, when you and I were growing up on the internet, it was an obviously safe space because the norm was pseudonyms and anonymity.
Now it's all about tying everything you say to your full name and current living address so it can follow you around for the rest of your life as a permanent record. Kids can do serious harm to their future selves by acting like the self absorbed little shits that we all once were.
The public view is that staying anonymous is some kind of "protection for criminals". It's very difficult to explain that it's "protection for your child". In my view, this pressure to publicly identify is a huge problem online.
Now it's all about tying everything you say to your full name and current living address so it can follow you around for the rest of your life as a permanent record. Kids can do serious harm to their future selves by acting like the self absorbed little shits that we all once were.
The public view is that staying anonymous is some kind of "protection for criminals". It's very difficult to explain that it's "protection for your child". In my view, this pressure to publicly identify is a huge problem online.
The BBC should make look closer to home and grow some teeth and balls and challenge the horrendous and repugnant direction in which the UK government is trying to take on privacy, blanket spying on the general public, right to protest and freedom of speech.
The last time they tried to take on the securitat was over the "dodgy dossier" in the runup to the Iraq war. They lost, quite comprehensively, and are not in a position to ever do this again.
The conservative government is already not keen on the BBC, and the press are happy to attack it to support Sky as an alternative.
The conservative government is already not keen on the BBC, and the press are happy to attack it to support Sky as an alternative.
Their funding is thanks to the British government[0]. So they'll do no such thing.
[0] They enforce something like a TV tax.
[0] They enforce something like a TV tax.
In UK, you have a right to privacy. As long as you are a high profile pedophile, that is.
> the horrendous and repugnant direction in which the UK government is trying to take on privacy
Well that's just your opinion. A lot of people would disagree with you.
Well that's just your opinion. A lot of people would disagree with you.
I'm not sure a lot would...
But, but, democracy! And voting! And "representative" government!
Snarky comment aside. I definitely agree with you, and I'm often very surprised that these sorts of "controversial" topics don't actually get tested. By tested I mean, put to a referendum. Yes, that means getting the majority of the voting populace to be asked which side of the fence they're on for that specific topic/idea/law.
Snarky comment aside. I definitely agree with you, and I'm often very surprised that these sorts of "controversial" topics don't actually get tested. By tested I mean, put to a referendum. Yes, that means getting the majority of the voting populace to be asked which side of the fence they're on for that specific topic/idea/law.
That's true. There are a large number of people that truly believe that if you have nothing to hide then you don't need privacy. Many believe that our security from terrorism is worth the trade off.
On that note, please can you post your last 6 months of bank account statements on github for us all to have a look at? I'm sure you won't mind us taking a look.
On that note, please can you post your last 6 months of bank account statements on github for us all to have a look at? I'm sure you won't mind us taking a look.
[deleted]
It's my opinion too.
South Korea is a good example of how the proliferation of technology doesn't necessarily entail increased political freedom. They might have great internet connectivity, but it comes with all sorts of overt censorship - the government blocks numerous websites, and periodically crack down on 'false rumours' online. Previously they enforced the infamous 'real name' law aimed at preventing anonymity on arbitrarily large websites.
Maybe not right away, but the effect is already showing:
...learning to control what kinds of media are encountered on the net is now a part of growing up...
Don't underestimate the power of youth. The old ways won't continue unchallenged.
...learning to control what kinds of media are encountered on the net is now a part of growing up...
Don't underestimate the power of youth. The old ways won't continue unchallenged.
I hope you're right.
On the other hand, the 'power of youth' works both ways - it seems like a non-negligible percentage of youth in the West favour more censorship, not less - witness the rise of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' on university campuses, for example. Their aims might be quite different to those of a semi-authoritarian government, but the censorious impulse is the same.
On the other hand, the 'power of youth' works both ways - it seems like a non-negligible percentage of youth in the West favour more censorship, not less - witness the rise of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' on university campuses, for example. Their aims might be quite different to those of a semi-authoritarian government, but the censorious impulse is the same.
Trigger warnings aren't censorship, they're a renamed content warning. People might voluntarily avoid consuming works labelled with warnings in some cases, but that's it.
Safe spaces are not fundamentally different to ordinary social spaces with rules. Was the introduction of anti-bullying efforts in schools some alarming new dawn for censorship?
Safe spaces are not fundamentally different to ordinary social spaces with rules. Was the introduction of anti-bullying efforts in schools some alarming new dawn for censorship?
Trigger warnings are fundamentally misguided; actual triggers for people with a past history of trauma are often not yhe type of things that get trigged warnings; the things that get trigger warnings are just things that are likely to be sensitive independent of such history, because "trigger" has been the subject of appropriation by people who want society to cater to their political sensitivity week found that mere "offense" want powerful enough.
Some people might be triggered by them, but real triggered are as likely to be, say, a scent that has become associated with the traumatic event because it was present at the time. "Trigger warnings" are based on a kind of intellectual association which had little relation to his actual triggering works but a lot to do with his run out the mill offense works.
Real triggering can only meaningfully be addressed with sensitivity to actual individual triggers, and any meaningful eastbound and agree disagree would be highly lesson-specific. The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.
Some people might be triggered by them, but real triggered are as likely to be, say, a scent that has become associated with the traumatic event because it was present at the time. "Trigger warnings" are based on a kind of intellectual association which had little relation to his actual triggering works but a lot to do with his run out the mill offense works.
Real triggering can only meaningfully be addressed with sensitivity to actual individual triggers, and any meaningful eastbound and agree disagree would be highly lesson-specific. The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.
> Trigger warnings are fundamentally misguided; actual triggers for people with a past history of trauma are often not yhe type of things that get trigged warnings
It really depends on the person. Some people who've had the misfortune of experiencing rape definitely do get flashbacks when rape is described to them, for example. This isn't a hypothetical thing: someone I know had this happen.
> The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.
Whether or not trigger warnings help with trauma, they are mostly harmless. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution here, given that most of the people with the biggest problem with trigger warnings tend to be people who wouldn't need them anyway.
Safe spaces don't just exist to avoid trauma, and the reason they exist isn't political. They exist to allow people excluded by mainstream spaces to participate. For example, rape survivors may find it difficult to participate in spaces where people make "jokes" about rape, for fairly obvious reasons.
It really depends on the person. Some people who've had the misfortune of experiencing rape definitely do get flashbacks when rape is described to them, for example. This isn't a hypothetical thing: someone I know had this happen.
> The modern phenomenon of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" if just privileging a certain set of political sensitivities and aesthetic preferences, not addressing actual safety from trauma triggers.
Whether or not trigger warnings help with trauma, they are mostly harmless. I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution here, given that most of the people with the biggest problem with trigger warnings tend to be people who wouldn't need them anyway.
Safe spaces don't just exist to avoid trauma, and the reason they exist isn't political. They exist to allow people excluded by mainstream spaces to participate. For example, rape survivors may find it difficult to participate in spaces where people make "jokes" about rape, for fairly obvious reasons.
I think you're underestimating the effects of content warnings. As an example, studios routinely alter films so as to achieve more favorable ratings from the MPAA.
Rating systems have teeth, yes. But the "some viewers may find the following images disturbing"-type warnings, to which trigger warnings are equivalent, don't have teeth. They're voluntary guidance. Think also of epilepsy warnings.
I think plenty of people would alter their content to avoid warnings, regardless of context. But, I only have data for the MPAA and also maybe recordings with explicit lyrics. I don't necessarily think warnings are bad, I just think that in general, if you're going to label people's work in a negative way, some people would rather change their work so that it doesn't get labelled like that. I mean, I try to be polite on HN so that it doesn't get downvoted and greyed out, but this isn't really that bad of a thing.
I can see where you're coming from. Removing content because you'd have to warn viewers about it makes sense, I suppose.
Though trigger warnings don't mean the work is "bad", just it might cause problems for a small fraction of viewers.
Though trigger warnings don't mean the work is "bad", just it might cause problems for a small fraction of viewers.
Yeah, I think we basically agree. I was just nitpicking.
True. And scary. The goals are completely different (protect the homeland/our entrenched political and monetary positions! and protect me from the world at large!) but the result is very much the same. Censorship makes its way into daily life, and before you know it, it feels "normal."
Is this enforced by the OEM ROM? Won't flashing a custom rom on your phone bypass it? How do they know the user is within the age group that is required to install it? If 3rd party apps are supported for this is there an app that either has a "hidden" disable setting or an app that pretends to have the functionality but in reality does nothing. Won't the infrastructure for a product like this be a large target for hackers? Is it enforced by the SIM card? Will it automatically be disabled when the user becomes old enough not to have the app installed?
I guess you have to register the age of whoever uses the sim, and the phone networks won't accept data connections if you haven't got the app installed(which probably handles logging into their servers or whatever).
It mentions "sites", but how you can know if browsing happens over strongly encrypted connection? Or part of it is MITM'ing these phones?
When I'm paying the bill, its my network and responsibility as a parent so I'll take whatever measures I need and track what I want. This is partially to protect my arse from misadventure by proxy and partly to establish healthy use of the internet.
This is done openly and with agreement only. My eldest disagreed so she doesn't get a handset paid for.
This is done openly and with agreement only. My eldest disagreed so she doesn't get a handset paid for.
South Korea is taking the concept of Nanny State to a whole new level!
"South Korea is a vibrant democracy. It's had free and fair elections since 1987."
(so it is 28 years, this is only about 5 years more than nations in Eastern Europe who escaped Soviet Russian dictatorships).
"Major-General Park Chung-hee took power in a coup in 1961.
He was a strongman who utilised brutal methods - but he also dictated that industries be created.
Under his direction, the South Korean economic phenomenon was born."
(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)
"Koreans know that. And the current president knows that. She should do - Park Geun-hye is the dictator's daughter. "
(this makes me throw up a little)