The Clean Network – United States Department of State • Hacker News Board

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#281

Post by YarickR2 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:30 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #114

kayson wrote: post #16

Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.

Back in 1982, the CIA is alleged to have modified some computers that ultimately blew up a gas pipeline. Spies to spy things. It's safe to assume that everyone with the power to do so is exploiting any advantage that they have.

CIA-staged gas pipeline explosion is an urban myth. I guess the same can be said about a lot of other casually known spy stories cited in this very discussion

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#282

Post by a9h74j » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #37

kayson wrote: post #16

Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.

There’s such a long list of this stuff from various companies. It’s not hard to research this at all. In terms of an anecdotal evidence... My father used to work for molex, one of his biggest complaints were fixing the molds after they were sent to Chinese factories. They would try to deconstruct them and couldn’t put them back together (this was the 90’s, early 2000’s). So they would be shipped back to the US operat…

> people who are trained, on factory floors, who are there to reverse engineer processes.

I only read this once and don't know if it is true. Supposedly Technology Transfer was/is a distinct engineering specialty in China, up there perhaps with Civil, Electrical.

Coincidentally this was while working with a US manufacturer which somehow could never satisfy a Tech Transfer arrangement completely enough to get the final contracted payment. (Mixed reasons there.)

Frankly I wonder if China will [thus] preserve aspects of industrial civilization while the US works and/or collapses toward a relative dark age. (One case in point: nuclear power generation.)

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#283

Post by nabla9 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #80

I have the same feeling about this as I did the announcement of the "Department of Homeland Security". The name sounded Soviet in origin, with only the exchange of "Homeland" in place of "Motherland". It reminded me of things my family had taught me didn't happen in the United States. "We call on all freedom-loving nations and companies to join the Clean Network." is a sentence straight out of an authoritarian playbo…

Washington Talk; Prickly Roots of 'Homeland Security' https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/31/us/washington-talk-prickl...

>''People find it a little quaint, a little forced,'' said Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University and author of ''You Just Don't Understand'' (William Morrow, 1990).

>At worst, Ms. Tannen said, the phrase is associated with sinister historical precedents.

>''There is one particular group -- American Jews, and I am Jewish -- for whom it has a menacing association,'' she said.

>Nazis favored the word ''heimat,'' or ''homeland,'' and homeland defense forces were known as Heimwehr or Heimatschutz in Austria and Germany from the late 1920's.

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#284

Post by chillacy » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

codemonkey-zeta wrote: post #161

chillacy wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own government also has more tools to use against you. You'll pass through your own border more frequently, you're more available to be arrested, harassed by LE, etc. How about as a lover of liberty, _nobody_ snoops on our data?

Of course you are correct, but the tools available to other governments still concern me greatly. Are we actually presently capable of making sure nobody snoops on our data? If so then I agree it is a better solution. But is it not better to use an imperfect plan which is implementable than wait for a perfect plan (if such a thing exists for cyber-security) to become implementable when a threat is present?

Depends how paranoid you want to be, and to what degree of certainty (after all it's impossible to prove a negative).

But in general, backdoors for "the good guys" are just more surface area for "the bad guys", and developers of products which take security seriously lock themselves out too.

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#285

Post by glenstein » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #110

This really comes off as a hastily prepared political dig against China, when there are in addition so many other actors and countries trying to take advantage of poor security. The JPEGed giant logo at the top doesn't help... Other observations: -- "Remove untrusted applications from US mobile app stores": so, this would call for even tighter control by Apple, Google, over its app distribution and monopolies? -- Cle…

>This really comes off as a hastily prepared political dig against China

I think 'Clean net' is a horrific, short sighted, dystopian joke that will be the subject of ridicule and fascination as a historical subject.

I also think there's no surveillance operation in the world as vast and as troubling as China's, and there's nothing fundamentally inaccurate or misleading about pointing that out.

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#286

Post by supernova87a » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

monoideism wrote: post #276

supernova87a wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a hardware vulnerability on router equipment handling traffic compromise data flowing over that router which has already been encrypted properly at the source/destination?

Your comment that I responded to was referring to smart phones (ie, multiple references to "apps" and "mobile") and now you're bringing up "routers"? Did you mean to do this? Because if not, it's what's called a bailey-and-motte fallacy. You've stated a very controversial, hard-to-defend position (what difference does compromised hardware make to a user's security?), mentioned it in a context where it would make a hu…

Sorry, we mixed up which hardware, in which questions. My question immediately above had to do with routers, etc. that the administration has also put attention onto.

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#287

Post by MattGaiser » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #110

This really comes off as a hastily prepared political dig against China, when there are in addition so many other actors and countries trying to take advantage of poor security. The JPEGed giant logo at the top doesn't help... Other observations: -- "Remove untrusted applications from US mobile app stores": so, this would call for even tighter control by Apple, Google, over its app distribution and monopolies? -- Cle…

> Why is CCP-owned infrastructure uniquely susceptible to this? If we can't protect our transmissions with encryption, secure data storage techniques, what does it matter that the equipment is supplied by China? What unusual attack do they get access to by owning or manufacturing the equipment?

Their companies are by law forced to cooperate.

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#288

Post by monoideism » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #286

monoideism wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment that I responded to was referring to smart phones (ie, multiple references to "apps" and "mobile") and now you're bringing up "routers"? Did you mean to do this? Because if not, it's what's called a bailey-and-motte fallacy. You've stated a very controversial, hard-to-defend position (what difference does compromised hardware make to a user's security?), mentioned it in a context where it would make a hu…

Sorry, we mixed up which hardware, in which questions. My question immediately above had to do with routers, etc. that the administration has also put attention onto.

OK, we crossed wires, no problem. However, for the reasons I mentioned above, compromised routers are still a very bad thing. At the very least, it's a beachhead from which to launch further attacks inside a data center or business. At the worst, they can use SSL strip to strip encryption off of any website/end-user who hasn't locked down HTTPS only. Plus, there are still many protocols in common use that are not encrypted by default.

Edit: Would you agree to let me (or anyone) hook up a compromised router inside your home network?

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#289

Post by rtkwe » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #216

cardamomo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. First of all, attitudes toward Chinese and other immigrants to the U.S. in the 20th century were formed, in part, by the language that was used by those in power. That Chinese immigrants were "dirty" was not fact , it was a racist stereotype. Second, I do not contend that describing anything in negative terms is racist. I am linking the specific history of describing Chinese immigrants as dirty with the Clean Net…

"dirty" isn't a racialized work like "chink". It's a word applied to anything we don't like and want to keep out. China already has a similar system also called (the Chinese word for) "Clean". Is the Chinese government racist against Chinese?

It's not but it does have a long history of being applied to vilify any immigrant group. In the early 20th century the US was forcing all crossers from Mexico to go through a delousing with Zyklon-B because they were 'dirty' and threatened to bring in vague disease. OP wasn't saying clean is exclusively a bigoted phrase against Chinese people, it's more broadly problematic and directed at any group considered undesirable.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots

Re: The Clean Network – United States Department of State

#290

Post by glenstein » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

eranimo wrote: post #278

adventured wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every affluent liberal democracy on the planet qualifies as an oligarchy by the premise that gets floated about the US. Similarly qualified: Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Iceland. Have you looked at how many billionaires there are in Sweden and Norway? Oligarchy. Sweden has considerably more billionaires per capita than the US does…

You're so close to getting the point

Serious question: if you pick any given surveillance state from a liberal western democracy and pick it out of a hat, and set it side by side with China's surveillance state, are you telling me you would not be able to tell them apart?

Because that's the point at issue in the thread you are replying to. And I'm personally kind of amazed that it's possible to lose sight of something I find to be an incredibly obvious distinction.