Should the US Really Limit Chinese-Government Influenced IT Systems? 220
coondoggie writes "New federal restrictions now preclude four U.S. agencies from buying information-technology (IT) systems from manufacturers 'owned, directed or subsidized by the People's Republic of China' due to national-security concerns. But is this a smart tactic? It's clear that some in the U.S. government, including the House Intelligence Committee — which issued a scathing report last fall that called Huawei and ZTE a threat to national security — and the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. are also working in other ways behind the scenes to keep technology made by China-based manufacturers out of U.S. commercial networks as well."
Some, anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
When you know who the foxes are, you keep closer watch over the henhouse. That just makes sense. It can be argued that there's still a role for inclusivity, but it has to be tempered with a dose of common sense.
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should first (Score:4, Insightful)
limit republican-leaning closed-source and un-auditable voting machines.
Re:Take it further (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly by forcing local supply you enable continuity of supply and are never subject to a foreign government dictating levels of supply. Local sourcing of all goods for all national infrastructure projects should be compulsory regardless of cost to ensure all those national infrastructure projects can be maintained without being forced to gain approval from a foreign government to allow that supply. That is a sane logical thing to do by any government and failure to do so when it is readily possible to treasonously betray the citizens of that country to the demands of another country, apparently based purely upon corporate executive greed.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you think the US isn't doing the same thing
What's your point? Maybe good advice to the Chinese government is not to use US made networking equipment (if there is such a thing anymore). That doesn't mean the US government avoiding Chinese equipment is a bad idea.
Re:Take it further (Score:2, Insightful)
Any government contract should be fulfilled with domestically sourced and manufactured parts whenever possible. If we can make it here, we should. If you want to create/protect jobs, it starts by keeping the money in the country as much as possible.
Any government contract should be fulfilled with the best quality product at the agreed-upon price whenever possible. Those are my tax dollars buying those things... I don't want to pay a premium because of your political values. And paying more for a a product or service doesn't create or protect jobs. If I pay $2 for a $1 candybar at the gas station, it doesn't mean the gas station attendant gets paid more; Even if everybody overpays, it still doesn't create new jobs. Jobs are created based on labor needs, which are related, but not causally linked, to price (and by extension, supply and demand).
And keeping money in the country as much as possible is an equally naive thing to strive for... money is just a financial instrument. It's a tool to enable the trade of goods and services. And any economist will tell you trade creates wealth, by the simple fact that as long as both parties are willing, they're both getting something they want. That means both parties are better off. Restricting international trade means that people in this country now have fewer choices and opportunities for trade... they are less wealthy because of that decision.
The United States became an economic superpower because it has steadfastly refused to take up the ideology you're preaching: The restriction of international trade, closing of our borders, and producing everything internally. This is what Japan tried to do up until WWI, and thanks to us kicking in the door on their isolationist policies, they went from a feudalistic agricultural society to a modern economic power in the scant space of fifty years.
Opening your economy to international trade provides enormous benefit to the domestic population -- provided that it is done with respect to maximizing trade for all citizens, not just the few and the wealthy.
Re:Some, anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It's wise and good security policy when China does it. [slashdot.org] If the US does it it's irrational, xenophobic, and probably racist (arguents which you will likely see in today's comments)
Re:Take it further (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very good argument to be made that all remotely sensitive government IT projects should use domestically designed and built products, because electronics can do sneaky things that are almost completely undetectable (cf. Stuxnet). When you're talking about steel for bridges, not so much. Forced local supply (especially for raw materials) ends up being just another opportunity for regulatory capture.
Re:Full Retard Mode Activate! (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides violating over a dozen international treaties
[Citation needed]
I suspect the treaty situation isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that. Those agreements are riddled with exceptions.
Besides, every single one of those treaties, like our Constitution, is not a suicide pact. The President has said "national security" and every one of those documents is trumped. If We The People don't like it we can, through our Representatives, impeach, amend the constitution or march on Washington with pitchforks.
I predict none of those things is going to happen.
And let me be clear: No government or private agency has come forward with conclusive proof
Not relevant. We need not wait until we're exploited by Chinese hardware to justify our actions. We have at least two good reasons to anticipate hostile intent. First, we already know we're dealing with a government that is actively attacking [guardian.co.uk] our IT systems. Second, we've done the same [wikipedia.org] to others.
The economic and political rammifications of this are being glossed over -- this action doesn't just affect our relationship with China, but with any country we do business with, because they signed the same treaties, and now they're looking at our unilateral action and thinking: What makes us think the US won't renege on their deal with us?
You have as your premise some deep respect for all these treaties and agreements. I believe most of these documents, particularly the trade agreements, are products of narrow interests creating special conditions for their exclusive benefit. I believe most of them amount to throwing open the ports and hobbling the port authorities to flood the US with stuff from places with no EPA, OSHA, NLRB, IRS, etc. I do not share your reverence for that crap.
As for the economic consequences; we've managed to survive and prosper without running our government on Huawei gear. I predict we can continue to afford to do without it.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we should use a substantial amount of Chinese equipment in places that are assured non-security related (who cares if they have current information on our disposition of stray cats and dogs), and then a bunch more attached to honeypots and decoy networks to watch them watching us.
Most martial arts show us that every attack is an opportunity to use an opponents momentum against them.
Re:Take it further (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay let's give this a whack... so in the long haul, there may be valid arguments for opening borders to trade and flattening the global economy, but over the last 30 years, what has happened is that America has completely lost the ability to do heavy manufacture (robots are just now bringing that work back home, but not to human beings sadly.) Though corporations make out, workers get squished. More and more they begin to resemble the third world workers who have gotten their jobs, until the third world workers rising economically meet our workers on the way down. In 1950-70 the average American paid 20% of their wage to Housing, Interest and Taxes. Through the devaluation of American currency from pumping it by the trillions into the developing world's economies, through corporate interests spacing the American economy, through inflation/QE, through predatory corporate and government practice, the average American now spends 70% of his income on housing, interest and tax.
I'm not even saying that the unnaturally high standard of living for the average American at the middle of last century didn't come at some high prices with respect to global competitiveness. I'm just saying the last 30 years have been a superating wound on the middle class with no end in site, and our government is about to cut the social safety net completely away leaving the poorest and least able to take care of themselves without means to live. When I see the vanishingly small population of disturbingly wealthy and powerful who have all made out like bandits (bandits being the oprerative phase here), I myself tend to long for the days a somewhat more protectionist American economy. Of course you may be one of those folks who've done well so clearly your mileage may vary
Re:Some, anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me all critical infrastructure should be based on Open systems -- both Open Source software and firmware, as well as Open hardware designs; so people can have the best chance possible at reviewing and verifying any critical infrastructure components.
Simply banning stuff from Chinese companies seems silly, though; since for every US company that has a foreign office and/or foreign employees, it's probable that their products have back doors too, from every intel agency in every one of those countries. Heck, I'd go so far as to speculate that most Microsoft security bugs might be such intentional back doors -- after all, if they don't it seems those intel agencies aren't really doing their jobs.
Better yet... (Score:1, Insightful)
not only should we keep out the Chinese technology, we need to keep out the goddam Chinese!
Re:Some, anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem is, this is all BS anyways and nobody knows who the foxes are. The label on the box is pretty meaningless. What counts is inside. And when you dig a little deeper, you find that even seemingly very American companies have their firmware written in China.
I am convinced that this is merely a thinly veiled hostile economic move and has nothing to do with IT security at all.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
China is also a trading partner with the United States, and still they attack us.
Dipshit.
France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partner right up until the declarations of war in WWII. I would not be surprised if that were true before WWI, as well. It happens.
Re:Some, anyway (Score:3, Insightful)