Can the US Stop China From Controlling the Next Internet Age? (nytimes.com) 255
Tech executives worry China will turn to tit-for-tat arrests of Americans in response to the detention of Meng Wanzhou. And the worries don't stop there. Kara Swisher, writing at The New York Times: Imagine, if you will (and you should), a big American tech executive being detained over unspecified charges while on a trip to Beijing. That is exactly what a number of Silicon Valley executives told me they are concerned about after the arrest this week of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of the Chinese telecom company Huawei, in Canada at the behest of United States officials. "It's worrisome, because it's an escalation we did not need," one executive said, referring to the already tense trade talks between the two countries. "What China will do, given all the existing tensions, is anyone's guess."
No one I spoke to would talk on the record, out of fear of antagonizing either side and also because no one knows exactly what is happening. But many expressed worry about the possibility of tit-for-tat arrests. While everyone focuses on the drama of the arrest -- Ms. Meng was grabbed while changing planes at the airport -- and its effect on the trade talks and stock prices, to my mind there is a much more important fight brewing, and it is about tech hegemony. Specifically, who will control the next internet age, and by whose rules will it be run?
Until recently, that answer was clearly the United States, from which the Internet sprang, wiring the world together and, in the process, resulting in the greatest creation of power and wealth in history. While China has always had a strong technology sector, in recent years it has significantly escalated its investment, expertise and innovation, with major support from the government. That hand-in-glove relationship creates obvious issues, and the Trump administration is right to stop pretending that China does not present a threat both from security and innovation perspectives. Further reading: China summons U.S. ambassador, warns Canada of 'grave consequences' if Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is not released.
No one I spoke to would talk on the record, out of fear of antagonizing either side and also because no one knows exactly what is happening. But many expressed worry about the possibility of tit-for-tat arrests. While everyone focuses on the drama of the arrest -- Ms. Meng was grabbed while changing planes at the airport -- and its effect on the trade talks and stock prices, to my mind there is a much more important fight brewing, and it is about tech hegemony. Specifically, who will control the next internet age, and by whose rules will it be run?
Until recently, that answer was clearly the United States, from which the Internet sprang, wiring the world together and, in the process, resulting in the greatest creation of power and wealth in history. While China has always had a strong technology sector, in recent years it has significantly escalated its investment, expertise and innovation, with major support from the government. That hand-in-glove relationship creates obvious issues, and the Trump administration is right to stop pretending that China does not present a threat both from security and innovation perspectives. Further reading: China summons U.S. ambassador, warns Canada of 'grave consequences' if Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is not released.
How about no country (Score:5, Interesting)
We really, really need to make a geography-free distributed encrypted storage layer (e.g. IPFS) much more of a reality, so that no country is in control. Preferably with TOR-like obfuscated routing also.
The Internet should become a platform on which we can build global society, economy, and democracy.
Re:How about no country (Score:4, Interesting)
The only way such a thing would work is if we had one Global government, and zero dissent. If we, as a species, have reached the point where we can have such a thing and actually live, as a species, globally in peace and harmony, then we wouldn't need such agreements about the Internet (or much of anything else, either). Sadly, we are not socio-politically (or mentally/emotionally, for that matter) evolved enough to accomplish such things. I wish we were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
DNS is the weak point right now. Also global routing could do with better security, so that some Nigerian ISP's screw-up doesn't cause Australian traffic to be routed via Mongolia.
Re: (Score:3)
We really, really need to make a geography-free distributed encrypted storage layer (e.g. IPFS) much more of a reality, so that no country is in control. Preferably with TOR-like obfuscated routing also.
We need to think about a network that can survive all-out war of whatever sort, whether it's DDoS or bombs falling on NOCs. What does that look like?
Re: (Score:2)
The internet literally came into being for that purpose.
No shit, sherlock.
The ever increasing ignorance of old posters truly is an amazing phenomenon.
The constant arrogance of cowards is truly a tedious one. Everyone and their mom knows that the Internet was the ARPAnet, and it was designed to be fault-tolerant. The problem is, the internet isn't very fault-tolerant. It's vulnerable to attack by malicious actors at all levels.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't mean control as in ICANN. They mean control as in Google, Amazon, and Alibaba. This has to do with which companies control the most popular browsers, search engines, online retail sites, and enterprise software vendors.
Re:markets (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Inability to slow down and stop anthropogenic global warming (and ocean acidification) due to fossil fuel use
2) Inability to stop worldwide rapid ecosystem and biodiversity destruction (terrestrial, oceanic)
3) Inability to stop the rapid reduction of clean freshwater resources worldwide
4) Inability to use sustainable agricultural practices, leading to worldwide soil degradation.
5) Inability to prevent unsustainable increasing rates of consumption of non-renewable resources
6) Near future inability to distribute wealth to rapidly increasing unemployed percentage of population due to automation and AI
and I would be a little cautious about holding up US government as a shining example, being as how it is led by a cartoon character and serves the interests of large corporations over the interests of people.
Re: (Score:2)
No the GP was right for everything except (as usual) the use of the term "free market". The "perfect market" is what he GP is referring to. The internet *was* a perfect market early in it's life.
People often confuse the terms and freak out at the idea of regulation. The reality is for their "perfect market" to exist regulation is a must as the "perfect market" is a "free market" at it's most unstable point. A free market on the other hand will tend towards monopoly and consolidation of power, and the natura
Re: (Score:2)
...and I would be a little cautious about holding up US government as a shining example, being as how it is led by a cartoon character and serves the interests of large corporations over the interests of people.
You probably didn't notice but at least the past 6, and probably more, administrations have served the interests of large corporations over the interests of people. If you think that voting for one of the two big parties is the solution you haven't been paying attention. If you regard the middle class as a barometer it's been falling since the 70's, during both D and R administrations.
Re: (Score:2)
...an open free market protecting government such as we have in the United States.
That is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Markets are the only foundation for society, economy and democracy.
Rules, and the ability to enforce them, are the foundation of (a successful and civil) society, and everything that follows from it. A stable society is what allows markets to function, and strict property rights are what encourages innovation, investment, and hence the growth of markets.
You have things completely backwards!
You're still thinking like a peasant (Score:2)
The real question is, will the working class stop letting the ruling class take control of the Internet. If the death of Net Neutrality is anything to go by the answer is 'no'. America's got an Election in two years, so we'll see
Re: (Score:2)
if you're asking this question. The ruling class has long since gone global. The US, at least as far as our ruling class goes, won't be trying to stop anything. They'll be working closely with China's ruling class since their interests (keeping the working class in line) align.
It's kind of weird, when you say it like that, it sounds just like what I've heard from a lot of Trump supporters (nafta superhighway etc)
Stupid question, easy answer (Score:2)
If you are that worried about being arrested on made-up charges when you visit a country, how about DON'T VISIT THAT COUNTRY. If you are worried that said country will make it hard to do business there or persecute your employees if executives stop paying so much attention to it, how about DON'T DO BUSINESS IN THAT COUNTRY.
Sometimes the better business decision is to turn down a prospect.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Arrogance of Americans is astounding. No tit for tat arrests, all strictly letter of the law arrests, just with the most severe punishment possible being applied. Unlike the US where family has become disposable, family is a big thing in China, really big, especially at the top. This was not the arrest of a Chinese executive, this was the purposeful assault on the child of a leading Chinese business leader, which in Chinese reality, also means a leader in politics (you do not get to be one without the other
Re: (Score:3)
"You're so vain / You probably think this [comment] is about you / You're so vain / I'll bet you think this [comment] is about you / Don't you? / Don't you?" - slightly adapted from Carly Simon
A lot of people would take my argument and use it to say that's why they would not visit the United States. I would argue that their concerns about arbitrary arrests are unjustified, but apparently my comment hit an authoritarian nerve -- you instead argued that the Chinese people would live up to all the stereotypes
Re: (Score:2)
If China does not want their international-criminal citizens to be arrested ...
Pretend I've been asleep for a few years.
Could you please explain to me, in what way is she an international criminal?
Re: (Score:3)
The charges against her (which she may be guilty of or not), is that she set up a fraudulent subsidiary of Huawei and defrauded US banks to do business with Iran several years ago when there were UN sanctions against doing business with Iran.
That violates US law, Chinese international agreements and UN resolutions. Further, there were other, related, crimes in other countries. Hence, the charges.
Re: (Score:2)
the message, watch out China, we will be arresting your children overseas (no matter how old still viewed as children), top notch messaging American sure to win life long enemies and Canada, oh so fucking stupid.
Contrast this with the top french CEO who was recently arrested in Japan for having skimmed a few millions here and there, and the reaction in France is closer to cheering...
Un. Fucking. Believable. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a Canadian, and I'm sick and tired of my government rolling over and being America's bitch. First the recent 'NAFTA' re-negotiations, and now this. Sure, Huawei probably bakes report-to-Chinese-goverment functionality into everything they make. And sure, America, and everyone else, has a right to be pissed off. But this arrest comes dangerously close to being an act of war - the US should never have done it, and my government sure as fuck should never have let it happen on Canadian soil. It's necessary
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She broke a law that she signed an argreement to follow.
Were you so passionate last may when US citizens were arrested in China for a crime one of their relatives might have done? They sit in a Chinese prison without charge to this day.
With the US, break the law and go to jail. With China, know someone who broke the law and go to jail. Take your pick and stop being such a "butthurt fucktard."
Sorry... but I disagree (Score:2)
If you've read the history of Huawei in America, it's been clear for some time that they only wanted a foot-hold in the USA in order to spy and infiltrate things.
Some years back, they appointed an American citizen as the president of their U.S. operations, and picked a guy who lived out in the midwest. He didn't look anything like the type you'd expect was in charge of a telecom business at all, and I'm pretty certain he was just selected because he was happy to get paid big money to go along with whatever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but your government has abs so it gets a tick in my book.
It was a New York City crime (Score:3)
She's being arrested for things she (allegedly) did in NYC, and the US requested an extradition for that. Are the charges made up? Probably not. But the Canadian government is giving her a chance to demonstrate it's BS before they extradite her. That's pretty much how extradition works.
Exactly (Score:2)
While Trump is right to go after China for their economic war on us, either directly or indirectly grabbing a CFO (who has NO say on who the company sells to), makes zero sense.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the CFO who was directly involved in the sale and runs the subsidiary company used to try and minimally hide the sale? That CFO? Yeah, no idea why anyone would think she was involved in her own actions...
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously aren't very familiar with international law which China has agreed to (mostly) follow.
The violation of U.S. law happened in the U.S. when the purchase was made from HP with the intention of violating the terms of the purchase and the law by reselling the equipment to Iran.
Here's an obvious case to illustrate how this works:
If someone sitting in China programs a computer in the U.S. controlling a plan to crash it and kill 200 people on board, they're still going to be charged with murder in the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because international shipping isn't a thing, and because the CFO was personally carrying the components back after purchasing them in the United States. /inserteyerollemoji here
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because in today's day and age, you can't purchase something without being physically present?
It doesn't matter where the CFO was, it matters where the purchase was made, from whom, under what laws. The officers of a corporation are responsible for their actions and their orders. I suppose you'd rather throw in jail the poor sap who physically loaded stuff up instead? That's not who is being paid to be responsible for following all applicable laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on getting the point, Sherlock.
Of course it does. Action didn't occur in the United States, it's not subject to US laws. Just think of the Pandora's Box you are opening here: throughout the course of this day, you've no doubt violated some laws in China, Saudi Arabia, Bumbfuckistan, where
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea what you're talking about. The illegal action (exporting prohibited technology to Iran from HP) occurred in the United States and it's subject to US laws. If you have an actual legal argument otherwise, then I suggest you bring it to the attention of her defense attorneys, I'm sure they'll thank you profusely and the judge will be very impressed with you.
And I bet that if someone in China convinces your bank to wire funds
Re: (Score:2)
The CFO in question was on the board of Skycom. That's publicly available information. "At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo." according to the Canadian Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com]. This isn't difficult detective work.
How about: [straitstimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's almost like we should have a court case in front of a judge and have the prosecutor present evidence of the crime and then see if there is enough for her to be extradited.
Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening! You say:
in response to a description of the court filing:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump had nothing to do with it. The official was grabbed during his audience with Xi
Error . Error . Does not compute.
lolwut? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can China control the next internet age when they cut themselves off from the internet?
We will deserve it... (Score:2)
...if we continue to sell our souls in the name of profit. Time and time again, we ignore the Chinese governments abuses and atrocities just so we can get access to their vast population. It's a literal deal with the devil.
Short answer: No (Score:2)
No. Like most western countries, the US has decided to dump engineering and science and logical thinking. We prepare to become more stupefied than ever. And we all do that willingly or because we are manipulated in that direction. Mostly because we are lazy.
Sorry, for being negative today, but just had some "great news" from the political domain as input and read university correspondence.
The US has not controlled the Internet (Score:2)
In the early days, it had no significant international capacity. International links were supplied by International Packet Switch Stream.
Yes, the US forged TCP/IP, but authentication and security were taken from CCITT standards.
Yes, the US held the root DNS, the IANA and ICANN, but that's by convention. In the 90s, I always cloned the DNS servers of sites I connected to, because DNS was so unreliable and slow. I used my own independent DNS tree first, theirs as backup.
Control is tenuous, power is a phantom,
Let me think (Score:2)
Would these would be the same US executives who have given us some the worst broadband access in any first world country while charging us more than virtually every other country?
Would they be the same executives who have actively opposed any regulations that would help the consumer and then forced consumers into one-sided arbitration agreements to take away their ability to even sue the companies?
Would they be the same executives who load up hidden fees on contracts, making any advertised price you see a c
Re:"China" is a tipping apple cart (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"China" is a tipping apple cart (Score:5, Insightful)
China is investing a lot of money in Africa in the same way that the U.S. invested a lot into China, so in some ways it seems as though they are trying to have our lifestyle. Unlike the western world, the Chinese aren't going to feel any guilt over colonialism or the like. Whether they'll be successful or not is another matter, but it's naive to think that the Chinese government is incompetent or incapable of trying to keep itself afloat as China continues to industrialize.
Re: (Score:2)
China as we know it is not going to be around a decade from now.
From my perspective, China seems more stable than it was 20 years ago. Certainly much more stable than in the 80s.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 80's were went China was recovering from that serial fuckup Mao. Now it looks like the current god-king is going down that same road.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the more realistic scenario is some countries will run their own networks under/through the internet that don't follow its centrally-agreed-to rules.
Yeah, they have their firewall, someday we'll install one too. Then people will stop calling the Chinese network "internet."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps one based on NameCoin, which seems to be the most advanced so far, to the best of my knowledge.
Then we won't have to be so concerned with countries and borders and "authorities" messing things up.
Extraterritorial reach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your guesses and assumption would be wrong [theglobeandmail.com]. Skycom is a subsidiary of Huawei. Because of that, she's on the board of Skycom and was directly involved in the prohibited transactions reselling HP
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they 'switched to capitalism'?
Ensuring private property rights and allowing capitalists to join the party were huge milestones in the switch to capitalism. The only vestiges of Communism now in China are the name, and publicly placed guards in museums, who often look very bored.
They hate the West and all it stands for just like they always have, and want to destroy us and everything we're about, make the Earth one big Communist state full of good little obedient Communist automatons that don't question the Party, don't complain about anything,
What are you even talking about here? Your comments are informed by ignorance. Not only Rare communism/capitalism economic systems and not a government systems, but the best way to understand the Chinese government these days is to think of it as an extension of
Re: (Score:2)
I'd run this thorough google translate, but I don't know what language it's supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I did English->Spanish->Bulgarian->German->English and it tells me that it means,
Not just unusual communist / capitalist economies, no systems of government
I think he's saying that if you don't understand anything at all about systems of government, you'd end up thinking China is in the Age of Empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are commmunism/capitalism economic systems (and not government systems)......
Sorry about that, I don't know where the R came from.
Re:That woman (Score:5, Insightful)
That's silly, what if they were never actually Communist, but Confucian Autocrats?
Westerns don't realize this, but Chinese and Korea societies are deeply Confucian, and the Confucian system is all about meritocracy; with the understanding that different types of merit exist. So they have traditional ways to make different types of governments based on the same underlying philosophy. For example in North Korea they are a Confucian Dictatorship, not any sort of "Communism." Merit in this case is believed to be inherent merit of the original ruler which he passed to his offspring. Very different than the European idea of kings being placed by God; instead they would presume that whatever natural powers they believe in endowed the leader with extra talents and skills for leadership, and his right to rule comes merely from ending up with more merit for the task.
China is an Authoritarian Confucian Bureaucratic state. Not communist, not capitalist. There is only one party because it is not representative; merely being alive is enough to be presumed to have equal merit in choosing leaders. Instead, people with more Merit rise through the bureaucratic system and get additional access to decision-making.
Of course they made room for the rich, by definition they've either proven their merit in actual practice, or used criminal acts to get there. If you're starting from the understanding that it is Confucianism wearing a Communist uniform then that was obvious all along.
One child policy was replaced once they got better at tracking the merit of individuals, and to gain data about what sort of tax structure would merely limit additional children to those with more merit.
You can't understand China with a view that only goes back to the Age of Empire, their system is a lot deeper than you think. And it isn't about the uniform that they wear so that foreigners can place them on an international team.
None of the different ideas about how to implement Confucian meritocracy involve being anti-business. None of them. They all assume that merit leads to prosperity; money, nice things, power, personal freedom, happiness, etc. But they have very different theories about which types of government lead to merit for a nation; eg, what leads to prosperity. They're always going to be pro-business, and they're always going to view unity as essential; once you figure out which system you're using, everybody needs to use that system.
None of their systems contain the western idea that open competition has more merit in government than purposeful unity. But that doesn't imply that they're against trade competition, or against individual economic freedom. They like individual economic freedom. They just consider political "freedom" to be anti-social and without merit; the thrashing of people without enough merit to participate in the decisions.
But that doesn't mean you should have that economic freedom as some sort of "right." You're expected to have enough merit to achieve it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't understand China with a view that only goes back to the Age of Empire, their system is a lot deeper than you think.
Confucianism is younger than the empire system in China.
China is an Authoritarian Confucian Bureaucratic state. Not communist, not capitalist.
Communism and capitalism aren't states, they are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, anarchism, utopianism, and monarchy are all types of governments (not always plausible).
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you've really swallowed the China-supplied Kool-Aid in one gulp haven't you? Or are you ignoring everything else in the news about China? ..or are you a China shill? Paid? Foreign national operative perhaps, astroturfing China to the West? Not as crazy as it sounds.
I want to point out that you are incapable of responding to a single factual point in my comment, so you resorted to insults. Good job.
I know better.
Clearly you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you bring any of that up? (Score:2)
Show me China's free and open elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unfettered access to the global Internet, respect for basic human rights, respect for civil rights, respect for due process, respect for a citizens desire to emigrate from China to another country, and so on, and so on, and so on. All rhetorical because China has none of those things.
He didn't say it HAD any of those things. He said it had capitalism (true), and imperial rule (which actually implies all of the things you just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read more positive in the news each day about China than negative. There are some bad actors and we scream it from the tops of our mountains for all to hear. There are also a lot of damn good things going on in China.
Foreign national operatives? I'm choking on this... do you have any idea how many stories I read each year implicating the American government on mass scale spying operations within and without? Do you honestly think this is a one-sided relationship?
The main differ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point is there is in human nature a need to have an enemy.
We really don't need an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. Yet another person on the internet spewing whatever nonsense they want about China?
My predictions about you:
- Probably do not have a passport, if you do, it has limited usage
- you do not have a chinese entrance stamp on your passport.
Can you provide a few examples of china trying to "destory the west"? Want some examples of the west trying to destroy China? (hint, this article and many posts abou thte US tring to 'contain' china).
"they hate us" OMG.. are you serious?
one State-allowed child
Y
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that concerns me is not that they are evil.
The thing that concerns me is that they clearly do not understand us. They will force us into war, just like Japan did, merely because they think that Trump will not be supported by the rest of the US. Because they think that deep down, we are like them and do not really value individual liberty and freedom. Because (like all other humans), they believe they are right.
They will go too far, it will be war, billions will die.
Re: (Score:2)
"They will force us into war, just like Japan did,"
Right..
As i posted before, you do realize they are approximatly 13,000 miles away right? If you dont like them, why not just not deal with them?
They have disputed islands (just like the US).. So what does the US do? Sail warships there to "prove a point".. I guess that is being "forced into war"?
Re: (Score:2)
> They have disputed islands (just like the US)..
I must have missed the part where the US is building up military bases on those islands, adding artificial military platforms, and is using them to try and control trade and freedom of navigation of our neighbors (the 9 dash line, as rejected by a UN arbitral tribunal).
Re: (Score:2)
Name a country the US doesnt have a military presense in.
I see.. it is is great the US does this, but not other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler
Good book..
Re: (Score:3)
The one child policy has been relaxed.
You are correct in one sense. The Chinese government is and has been Communist for a long time. Much of what the West sees as competition from the Chinese is completely misconstrued. The Chinese government really doesn't bother with competition... they really don't care who the best is. The
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be mixing up economic and political philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Iran-Contra? This story is about iran trade violations... what about the US gvt violating its own embargo?
Re: (Score:2)
So will she get a "suspended prison term" Like Mr. North got?
Re: (Score:2)
"But they were acknowledged as crimes and big deals, they got attention,"
Yup
" things changed."
*Scratches head* When? Probably about the same time as net neutrality issues, copyright cartel abuses, and nsa domestic wiretapping. As in, things were passed that claimed to be intended to fix the problems but actually gave legitimacy to the actions instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer isn't a one party system, a two party system, or a many party system. The answer is a zero party system where each candidate has to fight individually.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should any country control the Internet? Because it can. And China will be able to, because its economic clout will soon exceed that of the US. Inevitably, that means its military power will catch up. And at present, US soft power is in the crapper.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should any country control the Internet? Because it can. And China will be able to, because its economic clout will soon exceed that of the US.
That's not how it works. The US has never controlled the internet in other nations, even though it has been the dominant economic power. China can be the dominant economic power on the planet and still not control other nations' internets.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to know how cunning the American government is, https://www.theglobeandmail.co... [theglobeandmail.com] and then they sucked in Canada to fucked it all up. What, Canada, you think you can pick up all the lost US exports to China, fuck you Canada, US then ponders let's see what stupid thing we can get Canada to do, as punishment for stealing those exports to China, ohh, I know we will exploit this treaty and get them to fuck themselves up, the US doesn't get the trade, that means Canada the sock puppet doesn't get the trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely, China makes the equipment that makes the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
For small enough values of "makes" to cover "assembles," yes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't comprehend the difference between the past simple tense, and the perfect continuous tense, you probably shouldn't worry about routers and technical shit either.
Much less, law.
There was a proposal about 30 years ago for the US Government to hold copies of all the encryption keys, but they were laughed down by all the major and minor political parties in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's one solution: convince corporations to act as if liberty is as important as profit. But unfortunately it's an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Business equates profit with liberty because from the position of corporate leadership that actually makes sense.
Another solution would be to get government to regulate business in a way that would protect American values. But that's also an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Government equates corporate profits with American values, becaus
Re: (Score:3)
That internet use then adds or takes from their social credit (Social Credit System) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Communist party has a fear that people in China will read about:
Democracy
Tiananmen square
Term limits.
Find a cartoon bear funny.
Talk about protests and protesting.
In the USA a person has the freedom to talk online about politics and freedom.
To freedom to petition the Government.
The freedom
Re: (Score:2)
The US does business with worse countries than China. Does doing business with Saudi Arabia bring their values to America? Does using Israeli made CPUs (like many of Intel's parts) bring their culture to the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Communist nations laws stop publications and track users who protest.
Theocracies have powerful blasphemy laws that track users and their comments about faith and wanting to not be part of a faith.
That will stop the freedom of speech.
Spain, Germany and France do not like publication on a wide range of political and historical topics. They will use laws to try and prevent further publication and find out who publis
Re: (Score:2)
Okay but how does Chinese companies holding some of the 5G patents block publications in America? How does using a Huawei router running firmware that was certified at source and binary level independently in the US stop freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
To seek out advanced EU nations who can make new telco equipment.
In the USA people have the freedom of speech to question all trade policy and seek out other nations to trade with.
The USA has that freedom to "petition the government" part to consider trade.
To talk about not trading with another nation for any reason.
Thats the power of freedom of speech. People do not have to worry about talking about "patents" and "firmware" from Com
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA a person has the freedom to talk online about politics and freedom.
To freedom to petition the Government.
The freedom of the press as a profession. A freedom of religion.
China nominally also has these same rights. Nominally, as in on paper. On paper, China is the world's largest democracy. However, in the western world, that honor belongs to India because no western country recognizes China as a democracy.
The defining right of free speech that exists in the western world that is completely absent in China is the right to directly, openly, and repeatedly criticize the existing government leaders and to call for their removal. That right is the essence of the American Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 words: Great Firewall.
1 answer: yeah we should stop that.
I would have gone with, no, we don't need to stop it, because it is already contained by their own firewall. We just need to adjust our border protocol settings to prevent leakage.
Re: (Score:2)
1 answer: yeah we should stop that.
why? why do you think it is your business what they do? They are 13,000 miles away from you, why do you care so much about their rules/laws?
Have you considered that some Chinese want some form of censorship? Think about hte US prior to wide-spread porn. Was everyone in favour? What about the people who were not in favour, where is their voice? Have you considered your own censorship? Go on TV and say "f*ck".. see what happens.
Try getting yourself a passport, and ent
Re: (Score:2)
name calling.. the last resort of a moron.
Re:debt - do remember (Score:2)
having debt means other people trust you.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking he broke the laws of Canada too; Canadian authorities just had no real interest in prosecuting him except as a nuisance, especially as wind was already in the air for legalization in Canada. Plus his operation was more a bona fide political movement than as a criminal 'drug dealer'.
Nevertheless at the time, it was still illegal in both jurisdictions, and the treaties in place with the US meant that as a matter of law they could request his arrest and extradition.
I strongly suspect this Me
Possible causes (Score:2)
Technical illiterate, scared, and indoctrinated people elect politicians who are themselves technical illiterate. They do so for three reasons: (a) they understand what theses politicians are saying. Of course it is bullshit, but it conforms with the people's opinion. (b) these politicians get more funding by lobbyists and interest groups. (c) adverts and political indoctrination via "news outlets" specifically, local news, Fox News, favorite Youtube rubbish. Furthermore, the "other side" in media follows t
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the actions she was arrested for took place in NYC, NY, USA. So, you know, that tends to fall under US jurisdiction.