World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I'm trying to work out what specifically was illegal about all that? He was processing drivers licences for Chinese citizens. Ok. But as long as that doesn't constitute 'fake id' then what's the actual issue? He was locating Chinese citizens in America and passing that information back to China. Again, if he was acting as a private citizen (rather than, say, as a mole in an American government department) then isn't that free speech? I'm being devil's advocate somewhat, but doesn't this amount to a private citizen making a phone call abroad and saying "hey, I heard so and so lives in California" and now the US government are penalising him?
As a matter of law, try not to just automatically think "china bad", as that's not the basis on him being prosecuted. Imagine an American who goes to the Carribbean looking for Americans who are fleeing taxes owed to the IRS (for arguments sake). If they acted within the bounds of what a private citizen can do (look up public records etc) then would it be right for them to be arrested as an "agent of America"?
That's the kinda logic used to defend the upper class. "What did he really do?" Hyper focusing on specifics, rather than the actual act.
Acting as a foreign agent, directly operating under the orders of a foreign government under the jurisdiction of a sovereign country is a bit of a no go. No matter if it's China or not. We here in Europe have similar events with American spies every dozen years (and Russian and Chinese too ofc).
The stuff you mention about handing out valid Chinese IDs is mostly irrelevant flavor text. It's iffy maily because it was an unofficial station in the eyes of the US. Official embassies fulfill such roles too without issue.
I'm not being faecitious, but what was the "actual act"? If I was on holiday abroad and heard a fellow Brit, now a naturalised citizen of wherever, boasting about tax evasion and I snitched on them to the tax authorities in Britain, have I now done the same thing as an agent of the British government on foreign soil? Ive done an ostensibly legal act (made a phone call abroad) about something I legally came across as a private citizen, but if one wanted to, could that be cast as "colluding against a citizen on behalf of a foreign government"?
The difference in this case is this person was apparently being paid by the Chinese government. But I'm wondering what specifically about their actions was illegal? Surely if you go about your business doing legal things it doesn't matter whether you're on the payroll of a foreign government or not?
The US has no extradition treaty with China (or similar). So that would likely fall under spying and the "coercing a New Jersey man wanted by Beijing into returning to China" part is very much a major step over the line.
Edit: Also jeez people, he's just asking relatively reasonable questions form ignorance, stop tearing him a new one! Being wrong shouldn't immediately be cause for such backslash.
Thank you. Sadly people seem increasingly unable to cope with the fact that someone they disagree with is not a troll just a regular person trying to figure things out. I blame twitter.. reddit too.. all of them actually. It's worse by an order of magnitude than 10 / 15 years ago.
when it comes to China, there are a lot of state paid shills trying to barrage people with misinformation. Maybe it's genuine, but I'm disinclined to believe anyone actually believes we should allow foreign entities to have parallel authorities infringing on nations sovereignity.
I don't think there should be! At all. Also, fuck the Chinese government.
I'm just pedantically interested in exactly how the law works in that area.
For example, you characterise it as "infringing on a nations sovereignty". But as far as I know nothing this guy was doing was affecting the rights of American citizens. That might just be the shortcomings of the article, which is why I said I assume there was more to it. I assume he was up to bad stuff. And acting like a gangster on behalf of another government is plainly wrong. It's just that the article says he wasn't physically intimidating anyone. Nor does it mention he's sharing state secrets or personal info (from, say, a government job). Apparently he was passing publicly available information to the Chinese government and I was just surprised that that crossed a line.
Legally speaking there would have to be some ill intent (and perhaps that's what all his communications show) because sending public info abroad in itself doesn't strike me as illegal. (If someone were, say, sending info to the British government it doesn't seem it would be automatically illegal. I assume there was some evidence that he was planning for harm to come from what he was doing)
No, you are being facetious.
Being facetious is being not serious about something, or just to being trivial. I'm doing the opposite, trying to specifically understand how the law works. I was surprised that communicating public information elsewhere could be illegal. No-one's cited the law so far on specifically how this guy passing information was illegal. Like I said, if he was going around bullying and intimidating like a mobster it would be perfectly understandable. I was just surprised that this is apparently a limit on the first amendment because it didn't seem clear exactly where the line is.
Now you're just trying to lie to everyone here. If you can't have an honest discussion you don't deserve an opinion 🤷
Your presumption is the death of honest discussion, try and take people at their word. Some, like myself, are here to talk out their ignorance and learn.
This is an argument akin to "What do you mean I'm accused of fraud? All I really did was write my name on a piece of paper!"
It requires deliberate ignorance of the context, and that's why people are unwilling to waste time explaining it to you in detail.
I read the entire thread. You had every opportunity to honestly communicate or to stop grandstanding as the threads biggest dingus.
You did neither.
Have a great day 😅
Great lengths are gone to, to avoid responding to direct questions. If you can accuse the other person of being in a bad group (bot, capitalist, not actually left, from an instance I don’t like, etc) then you can avoid reflecting on your own philosophies and the flaws that exist in it. Cognitive dissonance avoided and upvotes gained, pretty compelling for our brains.
These police officers are reported to also go after people of Chinese origin that have said things the CCP doesn't like. Violating the right to free speech on USA soil doesn't sit well with the local authorities and diplomats.
We're they visiting them in person and physically intimidating them? That would make sense, but the article doesn't say. I got the impression they were sending publicly available info on people to china. Which, while obviously unpleasant, I'm not sure how their being arrested doesn't violate their freedom of speech.
Not this instance specifically, but other Chinese police stations around the world do indeed do that. It's seen as an organization, not unlike the CIA, just less official.
Doesn't work like that, my guy. They were targeting Chinese descendants, which would make them american.
Also this:
US officials have warned for years of Chinese determination to influence American policy and cultivate relationships with political figures, but also act to pressure US-Chinese nationals domestically.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but am interested in the logic of the law specifically. What was legally wrong about a private citizen sending a message abroad about publicly available information on someone?
I assume they were doing more nefarious things, but the article doesn't specifically say.
But if 'all' they were doing was dealing with publicly available information, then I don't follow the legal logic..
"private citizen sending a message abroad about publicly available information on someone?"
That is actually a pretty nefarious thing because it is targeted, as in spying. That's what is not legal.
Just a quick search gave me this:
18 U.S.C. 2261A says, “Whoever (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the jurisdiction of the United States, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to (i) that person; (ii) an immediate family member (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person….”
In this case, there is an intent to have repercussions. I was wondering as well why Private Investigators are allowed to do this and in short, they are regulated so they have to work within the frame of law and should have a lawful purpose.
Thanks, that makes some things a lot clearer.
But just play along with me for a second...
We're in court and that law gets cited and the defence attorney says "surveillance was happening, yes, but that in itself wasn't illegal. In order to break that particular law one has to prove it was being done with the intention that it result in "a well founded fear of death or serious bodily injury"'. And where is the proof that was the intention or the result?
So if this guy's going around like a mobster on behalf of the Chinese government and threatening people on their doorstep I'd get it.
But, reading the law closely, just sending information to another country does not, in itself, seem to be illegal. That's why I was making the point about free speech. The first amendment is literally about communicating legal information freely without persecution from the government, even if that's with people the government doesn't like.
I'm not saying the guy didn't do anything wrong, I just mean I assume there's more to it than the article is describing..
But surveillance is illegal, especially in a targeted form. Let me put it like this, your address is public, as people can see when you get in and out of your house. But now someone goes and tells someone else, a criminal, your address with the intention to cause you damages. That person, the informant, becomes directly an accomplice, even if the person didn't do damage directly.
But it's the "with intention to cause you damages" bit that makes it illegal (I believe).
Saying you saw so-and-so down at the shops is obviously not illegal. Saying that to their ex-partner so they go and beat them up is. (Even then a prosecutor would have to prove you incited or intend harm to come, just the sharing of info itself isn't a crime per se)
That's what I wasn't understanding from the article. Are there very specific limits on first amendment so that what would ordinarily be communication of public information becomes illegal just because the recipient is a foreign government. Or was it illegal because the public information was shared with the known intent of causing physical harm.
The article sounded like the former, which surprised me. I think the latter is probably the actual circumstances though I could be wrong.
Well you are talking about 2 different things.
Stalking: just following a person for your own personal benefit.
And Spying/Surveillance: following someone to share the information with another entity or government.
The person in question had several logs and such logs were communicated to the chinese government, they have proof of this, so such actions are criminal offenses.