81–90 of 165 posts
World: We're not being paranoid. US drones kill innocent civilians around the world. They're really beating the drum on China. Be intensely suspicious. China is a trading partner that does some shitty things (e.g. in Xinjiang province), but the nation focused on world domination is the one right here.
World: We're not being paranoid. US drones kill innocent civilians around the world. They're really beating the drum on China. Be intensely suspicious. China is a trading partner that does some shitty things (e.g. in Xinjiang province), but the nation focused on world domination is the one right here.
You're comparing apples and oranges. US drones aren't doing fully autonomous killing, they're killing through policies of leaders you help elect. That's the apples. The oranges is tech we purchase (drones in particular) having backdoors. Why do you think these two are comparable?
the US government could deploy an update to turn any phone into a spy device because both apple and Google are headquartered in the US
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just publish technical information. It isn't hard. It would do huge damage to the Chinese and reinforce the US's whole argument. I doubt that it would damage China. The existence of the threat is already well publicized. I think that U.S. intelligence does not talk about specific threats because the attack vectors would probably misunderstood and underestimated by the general public. There would inevitably be pushb…
> I doubt that it would damage China. The existence of the threat is already well publicized. It'd certainly damage Chinese companies and curtail those companies' utility as sources of intelligence. How many drones do you think DJI would sell if it became known that flight logs and aerial photos were being uploaded to the Chinese government? (This is all purely hypothetical but the DJI app is very aggressive about pe…
Roughly about as many as today. A recreational or content production drone is sitting dead without a battery >>95% of the time. This is a much weaker threat model (both objectively and in the perception of consumers) than all those connected, always-on microphones and cameras installed in homes, offices and pockets.
I mention this as a precedent: to many people out there, "the Chinese government" isn't a lot more foreign than "some American tech empire" and data-derived unpleasantries are far more likely to have practical implications for them with US immigration than with the Chinese communist party (because the US is still more open). And yet those people still buy westcoast-designed (and connected) devices like hotcakes.
Something I've wondered- why hasn't Lenovo received the same flack that DJI and Huawei received?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well of course. Every country has at some point been hostile to it's own citizens or some segment of it's population. It's something that the citizenry need to push back on and keep the government in check. But by and large, the US is no where near as adversarial to it's citizens, companies, or infrastructure as China.
That claim would need some substantiation. Not sure how you even measure that. Certainly, if you and I started spending repeated 30 minute looking for examples of adversarial actions taken by the US and China against their people, neither of us would run out of examples before tomorrow. So what are you claiming exactly?
I was also asserting that I personally do not believe that a government should conduct espionage on it's own people and that society needs to push back against such actions. Even in cases where another country is highly adversarial to you, the milder home country might be much worse because of their proximity and involvement in your day to day life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how the trade war fixes the possible security issue caused by a potential OTA update in a potential conflict, a solution would be to make illegal OTA updates for critical hardware and software without getting the update reviewed. So military or other important things would buy only products that are reviewed and with updates that are signed by the government. Or even simpler have this hardware and softwar…
The trade war -- if done right -- would supposedly force China to make some real concessions if they want the trade war to end. For instance, they almost agreed to end the forced tech transfers from US to Chinese companies, but then they changed their minds, which seems to be what actually prompted the recent tariff raise to 25%. I understand not "making the economic situation worse", but sometimes things have to get…
"because Chinese developers tend to "take take take" and not contribute anything back, ever." It's not ture. For example, Siggraph is the best conference in the computer graphics field. In 2018, the number of papers that contain Chinese or ethnic Chinese is 45%.
Besides, many Chines and ethnic Chinese reasearchers are active in many frontier technology filed such as AI and Computer Vision field.
The acadimic and industry status and constribution of Chines reashers/company are increasing rapidlly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just publish technical information. It isn't hard. It would do huge damage to the Chinese and reinforce the US's whole argument. I doubt that it would damage China. The existence of the threat is already well publicized. I think that U.S. intelligence does not talk about specific threats because the attack vectors would probably misunderstood and underestimated by the general public. There would inevitably be pushb…
This has nothing to do with convincing the general public. The US is struggling to convince their own allies that the threat is real, and definitely haven't convinced the technical community they need to stop buying e.g. Huawei hardware. > The existence of the threat is already well publicized. Parroting the same vague "there's a threat, but the threat is secret so we cannot tell you about it" isn't well publishing a…
The US has to convince their allies that buying from China is more dangerous than buying from the US. I don't think anybody doubts there isn't a threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's similar to how we can't let Saddam know that we know where his giant WMD factories and storage facilities are, so you just have to take our word for it...
I don't know how old you were at the time of 9/11 - but there were loud, public voices in the Intelligence Community telling everyone that the WMD situation was fabricated. To the point the only person claiming there were WMDs was Cheney and his inner circle, which is why both the Democrats and our international partners had to be brow beaten into supporting the invasion of Iraq. To claim these two situations are the…
It seems like they're just saying: - China makes most of the drones - A lot of them aren't very secure Which isn't surprising to me considering the state of things like DVR cameras (also mostly made by China, also plagued with security issues) and similar tech. The real problem is that consumers want cheap but quality and security aren't cheap. The cost of security isn't obvious and consumers don't really know how to…
I think it's well accepted that there's high quality standards in China (there's the whole range of quality) - for drones DJI has been a reference for example.
But tech security is such an intangible thing that most of the population doesn't understand it.
And in all honesty it seems that there's no protocol, or standard procedure, or evaluation of tech goods that come to the market and must pass security testing.
For example, with GDPR, at least a framework came out for data protection and protocols were set in place. The adoption was and still is chaotic for a lot of organizations, and it has plenty of flaws - but it is indeed something that's working towards a goal.
So far, in terms of security, it's like there's nothing in place.