I grew up in Communist East Europe where surveillance was ubiquitous. There were many things people simply didn't say or discuss in public or on the telephone because they didn't know who might be listening. To talk to a Western journalist would have been foolish because it would've invited suspicion and scrutiny. Those who did talk to foreign journalists were either reckless or government agents. Most of them were the latter. Journalists in China would do well to remember this.
16
The bizarre circumstances of the death of Michael Hastings ought to remind us that the world itself is a security state as it so chooses, the US is not immune to that reality, and journalists have great courage to follow the story wherever it leads.
6
Fascinating...
And scary.
2
.
I c: UC = University of Canton
So noted, Mr Yuan.
.
I hope the NYT is keeping tabs on Mr. Mozur. His evasion of State surveillance, while noble, is sure to land him in jail.
15
The solution is simple. Watch them back. All it takes is cameras, computers, and the will to do it. The simplicity of it is why despots hate journalists.
7
There's a lot of hyperbole in this article. Vast majority of technologies in China are there to capture ordinary crime and not to spy on foreign journalists who have such out-sized sense of importance. U.S.'s adamant culture of privacy, the right to arm, and limits on policing give us the highest murder and crime rates among industrialized countries. Every single local news broadcast begins with a list of murder and mayhem. In all of America, the percentage of murders where no one is arrested is now at 59.4 percent, a truly staggering reality for any nation that is not a "failed state." China has eight times less murder rate than the U.S. (0.62 vs. 5.35 per 100,000). If quadrupling our surveillance camera can halve the murder rate and double the capture of violent criminals, I'm all for putting them up.
5
I think you’re forgetting that China is a totalitarian state with extreme internal controls and oppressive laws around even everyday behaviour. They don’t need that level of surveillance to catch common criminals.
29
@UC Graduate do you expect us to believe the "official" crime statistics from the Chinese authorities? And that number probably doesn't include the Uyghurs murdered by the government this year...
25
The various revelations by Snowden tells of data collection in the USA is at the same level as China's. Wholesale broad data collection stored for later use. "Security" cameras in public places in the USA are catching up with China.
10
@K Henderson
Not by a long shot, in the US police still need warrants and probable cause, in China they don't even need to make a request, they just go to their keyboard and look it up.
10
There is only one surefire way to avoid surveillance of your electronic devices, and that is to not do or say anything, which you want to remain secure / private, on any communications device, including landlines, cell phones, and computers,
If you want to enjoy complete security / privacy, the only way to get such is in a face to face meeting.
With the widespread use of stingrays by nearly every police department, the use of dirtboxes, the use of keyloggers, the use of mirroring, the 24/7/365 recording of all electronic communications on the planet, by government and private agencies, there is no such thing as privacy, and anyone presuming such is simply unaware of what is going on.
17
Sorry but all of this is naive:
"If you want to enjoy complete security / privacy, the only way to get such is in a face to face meeting"
Where do you meet? Cameras and mics can be hidden in anything these days. And that's just for starters.
M, As soon as you are typing on an internet cobbected computer there is no "surefire" anything for privacy.
13
@K Henderson
Yes, you are correct.
I should have been explicit, and said something to the effect that real securit / privacy is only possible, inside a Faraday cage, presuming parties meeting have determined each is clean.
Most major corporations these days have secure meeting rooms, as well as no electronics allowed.
I got a kick out of how Russia, some of its agencies, have gone back to typewriters, after the Snowden data spill.
Incidentally, something few know, the impact of one's fingers, on a keyboard, can now be sonically picked up, and deciphered.
17
@Mel Farrell I think you meant "meet naked after a mutual full cavity search, in a soundproof Faraday cage which has been swept for devices by nobody but you using sniffers that you personally built from parts, and that remain constantly in your personal custody." or something like that....
6
Why would you wish to bring to their attention that you use two phones?and the time the policeman was lounging on your bed going through your photos...how did that end?
8
@Stanford my assumption is one is dirty and one is clean. Then bait and switch when your asked to pull it out.
and do you grease a policeman in China?
pack of smokes and a $20?
1
I don't understand why any Chinese citizen would even begin to talk to someone like Mozur when they know that avoiding the surveillance state in China is all but impossible.
The Times story on how the CIA's spy network was systematically dismantled by Chinese counterintelligence only underscores how effective it is. Has it ever occurred to him that the pair of smart glasses that he was shown was intentionally crippled?
The best way to allay any fears of being under surveillance 24/7 is to get a journalist like Mozure to write an article claiming otherwise.
This oft-repeated claim that iPhones and Macs are more secure than a Samsung Galaxy or PIxel or any other high-end Android phone is bogus. It's just marketing copy from Apple, nothing more.
Pixel 2 and 3 both have the same kind of security module. Samsung has the Knox platform. It's disappointing to see NYT reporters who are supposed to be among the elite of the profession making unsubstantiated claims about how secure Apple's devices are.
11
@Jay It's not mere marketing copy, although it certainly can help marketing. The longer a device has known security vulnerabilities which have not been patched, the less secure that device is. So the time period between when a vulnerability becomes known to malicious actors and when a patch reducing or removing the vulnerability is installed, is a period to be minimized in order for security to be maximized. Apple creates system software updates - including security patches - and sends them directly to Apple devices (assuming the device is configured to receive automatic updates). But security updates to Android devices go through one or more intermediaries, e.g., Samsung. Also, there are multiple Android system software vendors. These factors tend make Android software less up-to-date than Apple software, which can easily translate into being less secure.
11
@Jay -
>The Times story on how the CIA's spy network was systematically dismantled by Chinese counterintelligence only underscores how effective it is
Link?
3
If you've ever had a Chinese policeman reclining on your bed smoking and swiping through your pictures, don't blame either IOS or Android: you're not qualified to write this article, because you didn't take phone security seriously enough. Granted, security only works if you use it and if it's easy, so Samsung's iris recognition absolutely beats numeric 4-digit passcodes. (Be honest, iphone users: do *any* of you ever use a moderately more secure 6-digit alphanumeric passcode?) Even an iphone can beat Chinese (or CIA) surveillance, with a modicum of effort.
The caption of the third picture is misleading. He does not use Mac because it’s more secure than Android, which is mostly an operating system for mobile devices. He uses iPhones because of it. I suppose some of the “commenters” in China will laugh and use this silly caption to discredit this article.
2
Fear drives the surveillance state. The CCP is particularly fearful.
3
In the US power resides with the people, and in China with the state. This is by design, since China is communist and the US is a democracy.
It therefore follows that in China the state would want to exercise control, whereas in the US people have the institutional means to push back.
I would expect to be totally exposed in China, which is why I would never want to live there. So would the best and brightest Chinese, which is why we should invite them to emigrate.
Freedom is intoxicating, and this includes freedom from the state. Let's stay ahead by inviting the smartest and most entrepreneurial Chinese to emigrate to the US, and over time to reform their motherland. Taiwan is a role model in democracy for the mainland to adopt.
15
@Baddy Khan
"Let's stay ahead by inviting the smartest and most entrepreneurial Chinese to emigrate to the US, and over time to reform their motherland. Taiwan is a role model in democracy for the mainland to adopt"
That's been our long game, but the data is still out, if you will. Some earn a degree here, get the H1B visa, eventually a green card and never go "home." Of those that do return, one can assume that a certain percentage game the system and find success or simply get back in line, if you will, having something of an advantage over countrymen educated at home, or not.
5
@Baddy Khan, I agree that with China, power resides with the state. But power in the US is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, and politicians on both sides of the aisle, regardless of their speeches and flag-waving, are beholden to their corporate sponsors.
12
@Baddy Khan - NO WAY. The best & brightest Chinese should not go to USA.
In February, FBI director Christopher Wray asserted at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that spying by Chinese professors, scientists and students in the US constituted a “whole-of-society threat”. He added, “It’s not just in major cities; it’s in small ones as well; it’s across basically every discipline.”
South China Morning Post published a lengthy report by Mara Hcistendahl (May 5, 2018) "Spying charges against Chinese-American scientists spark fears of a witch hunt".
The best & brightest Chinese scientists might have considered Canada had it not been for the stupid arrest of Huawei's CFO when her plane landed in Vancouver on a transit stop. Canada can really use more high skilled Chinese scientists and engineers to move away from resource industries like oil, ore and timber.
It might be nice if the US became the privacy state in contrast to the proliferation of the surveillance states. It is a naïve speculation but, by coining a phrase, maybe we can get a few politicians to try to nudge the government toward a greater respect of personal freedoms and a sense of protected privacies with respect to this particular issue.
10
A more meaningful stat for surveillance cameras would be China vs. the UK. I believe the U.S. lags behind most countries in this area.
@Jeffrey Agree. Not just that, There are more people in China than in the USA. Presumably the per capita camera density would be revealing.
8
"when I returned to my room ... I found a police officer reclining on the bed, smoking a cigarette and casually swiping through the photos on my digital camera. "
An Orwellian police state. A country where people don;t appreciate freedom of speech, association and thought can be very dangerous. Allowing companies such as Huawei to take over Western communications because they are cheaper would be irresponsible folly.
33
He can look at my photos (I hope he likes cats) but I draw the line at smoking in my room.
14
As for privacy, as Ben Franklin said.
Three can keep a secret when two are dead.
Do not say anything on a phone that would be a problem if made public, as the person on the other end could be recording it. The same for email, it can be saved insecurely by the recipient, or forwarded.
If you do no something that is against the law, or relay confidential information then as Mad Comic Alfred E Newman would say. "What me worry".
2
Privacy, in China, is interpreted as secrecy. And secrets can only have a detrimental effect on society.
1
@tinhorse
Are you combing notions of secrecy, privacy and transparency?
In China, there appears to be a public understanding that personal privacy is not protected while in the U.S. most citizens are not concerned about their own protections. How else could Facebook exist and prosper so mightily? As for me, I don't book Face and neither should anyone else.
22
So dissidence is dangerous in China and this leads to a reporter treating sources with caution.
Is not dissidence becoming dangerous in the US? Bills are passing that prohibit criticism of specific countries or protests of pipeline construction. I am sure one can add to this list.
How soon are reporters going to undertake the same precautions here that Mr. Mozur takes in China? Reality Winner certainly would ask the same.
Lastly, I wish reporters would source the blanket statement "IOS (Apple, Mac) is more secure than _". I have not seen any security expert make that assertion.
4
@david lamy
It would have been nice if the reporter had sourced his statement regarding Apple security. But since the topic of this article is not specifically about OS security differences or Apple in particular, I wouldn't expect him to elaborate on his offhand statement.
iOS is generally considered more secure than Android because iOS is a "closed system" which makes it more difficult for hackers to find vulnerabilities. Since Android is "open source" users can make their devices more vulnerable tinkering with the code. When Android app developers and device manufacturers release code with a vulnerability, it is much easier for hackers to find and take advantage of it.
The Mac OS is likewise well known for having much less exposure to malware but for different reasons than iOS. Its Unix-like underpinnings (which iOS also uses) provides OS X with inherently stronger security than Windows.
Apple's OS X and iOS operating systems are much less vulnerable than Windows and Android but they aren't "malware-proof." Apple customers should not be complacent about maintaining good digital security practices.
I suggest that you perform a Google search using the phrase "Apple superior security." It will turn up myriad articles comparing Apple to Windows and iOS to Android. Some of them will be written by those security experts whose opinions you seem to value. Brian Krebs is one of my favorite writers on digital security issues. He was profiled in the Times in 2014.
15
@Mojo
thanks for breaking this down.
I will raise another major reason Apple is more secure and privacy oriented: privacy is a core business model differentiation for Apple.
When you see Tim Cook go to the mat to defend a user's security when the FBI wanted to crack the iPhone encryption then you know Apple is staking its business on privacy as a feature.
This is probably the biggest area that Apple differs from Google.
The essence of it is: follow the money. Apple does not even have an Advertising business (anymore) and thus does not mine your email (Gmail) for keywords and attempt to gather all of the data in the world.
Instead, Apple sells expensive, premium hardware and highly integrated services and software to provide a much more secure digital experience.
Android and Chrome hardwares are all subsidized by ad $$ which is essentially mined from your private data.
I for one gladly fork over the extra $$ for the Apple experience, despite its "Locked down" nature.
9
@Mojo the caption under one of the photos is unfortunate, however: "Paul Mozur works on a Mac because, he says, Apple tends to be more secure than Android." I'm afraid Mac OS and Android OS are two different things. Perhaps it should have been Mac vs Windows, or even Mac vs Chrome?
Is US really better than China in privacy protection?
13
Yes.
16
@Shanghai Wonders
Are you familiar with the Marxist Leninist Maoist dictatorship of the proletariat?
Apparently not.
1
@Shanghai Wonders Somewhat. You see, we have a constitution, and while it sometimes takes time and effort to get our leaders to abide by the constitution they are usually shamed into it after some effort. You have no constitution. You have a dictator in Xi. We have a wannabe dictator, but he'll eventually be gone.
Our leaders would like to spy on us all, but they are limited in what they are allowed to do. Your leaders are not limited in any way and you have no power. We protest when we are unhappy with our leaders. You are not allowed to even register disagreement.
Trump is a moron and so is Xi. You can't say that in your own country.
12