141–150 of 257 posts
Here's the inside story of how the ban was years in the making and all the effort it took. From someone in the government at the time the process started: https://twitter.com/JoshuaSteinman/status/159637064508835020...
This is just appalling protectionism; is it really something that we tech people should cheer on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just appalling protectionism; is it really something that we tech people should cheer on?
As an US citizen “tech person”, I absolutely cheer this on.
To what extent do the industrial designers of consumer hardware take into account the threat of a last second modification of the design to suit the needs of the manufacturer? To what extent would such modifications be detectable by...anyone, ever? And what would it look like? The software version would be a bad network driver that examines all traffic for a specific triggering pattern that would take over the machine at first as uninvasively as possible, starting by modifying the kernel and the boot image (to stay activated). Establish contact with attacker and examine the user and their accounts. Some users are more valuable than others, having privileged positions in large companies, control or knowledge about important infrastructure, and so on. Or they may be celebrities or other people of note. Or they may be friends of those people. It would be useful to undermine everyone at once, but using a stochastic process that minimizes a torrent of data. Oh and it's probably better for china to maintain at least some of their C&C outside of China to make it less obvious who the actor is, and to maintain connectivity for longer. Ideally the adversary C&C would exist within the target country. In the USA you'd want a confusing relationship that is plausibly legitimate, and turn it into a free speech issue, slowing down the legal system, and so working to China's benefit. While the justice system tries to do it's job, you use the data you gather to build a very accurate and detailed picture of the nation's capabilities, all with names and leverage attached. Over a short period of time, say a few days, what havoc could such an entity do to our nation, if it could send messages as anyone to anyone and be undetectable as illegitimate?
And we worry about DDOS botnets!
(Note: if we had on-shore manufacturing it wouldn't solve the fundamental issue which is that humans can mass manufacture invisible machines that can't be inspected. These machines are so small they cannot be perceived, not even with the most powerful magnifying instruments[0].)
Of course, all of this could be way off base. An equally valid (if more cynical) reason for sanctions like this is that regulatory capture and campaign generosity is finally paying off for someone.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope And the preparation methods required destroy the object under test, such as a chip image.
That said, for some reason I doubt that hardware deployed in the 5 eyes nations won't also be used for surveillance purposes, just that the institutions controlling the systems will be different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is government involvement problematic? Many firms have government involvement, often in an under the table manner. For example Airbus. Government involvement is in itself no grounds for banning a company.
Airbus is a French company. France is part of NATO. In the event of war, France and the US would likely be obligated to be on the same side by their NATO treaty obligations. I don't think you are very informed on this matter.
https://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/actualite-econom...
Here's the inside story of how the ban was years in the making and all the effort it took. From someone in the government at the time the process started: https://twitter.com/JoshuaSteinman/status/159637064508835020...
> in celebration of a great professional victory, At first I was intrigued about why did that guy call all this industrial protectionism act as something "professional", afterwards I saw that he is an active part of the industrial defence complex (he's a National Security Council staffer), so that started to make a little bit more sense. I'm wondering though for how long will the MIC ghouls continue to have the upper…
It's a bit like buying communication equipment from the USSR. Maybe the equipment is fine! But accepting even such a thing as the US national emblem from the USSR proved to be... a decision detrimental to security [1].
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
I have an online Chinese security camera system outside my house. I'd be happy to replace it if usgov wants to subsidize that. The SSH Honeypot on the network with it remains untouched for now.
No one is asking you to replace it. Keep it as long as you like. If you read the article you will see this applies to 3 specific companies, and prohibits them from selling new things in the future.
It might also be we're witnessing masterful manipulation of the USG by corporations at (economic) war with each other, using every option to destroy the other's access to markets. Lots of speculation either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way you're framing makes it sound unique to China. PRISM [1] hasn't gone anywhere and has certainly only expanded since the leaks. Google, Apple, Microsoft, and many others were all participating companies. If China starts stooping to the same level here they would be obligated to ban products from these companies and more. If they want to make a spectacle of it, they could even have a kangaroo court committee he…
It is absolutely them vs. us. We can choose to respond to their provocations or not, but they will continue them. The more the techno-libertarian crowd denies this, the more irrelevant you become.
This is all just a theatre as mentioned, long term planned escalation with some form of conflict inevitable. Not judging, it makes sense for each side to act as they do, but these congress hearings were a farce with decided outcome long before they were even announced, not some fair public discussion.
Here's the inside story of how the ban was years in the making and all the effort it took. From someone in the government at the time the process started: https://twitter.com/JoshuaSteinman/status/159637064508835020...
This is just appalling protectionism; is it really something that we tech people should cheer on?
Most Ukrainians don't want to kill Russians, but they were attacked. "Fight back" and "surrender" are the only two options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an US citizen “tech person”, I absolutely cheer this on.
Not using it government/critical telecom makes sense but other but a general rule seems like a big overreach.