91–100 of 412 posts
What is a better way to prevent mass IP theft the CCP is doing?
In case it's not obvious after you read the text in that page, the word "Clean" in the context of that text actually means: * balkanized/siloed instead of globally standardized; * permissioned instead of permissionless; and * monitored via backdoors instead of optionally secure. I'm reminded of this passage from George Orwell's classic piece, "Politics and the English Language" ( http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/7…
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.
The problem is not that the claim is false, but rather the one-sided focus on it that justifies the USG surveillance state continuing to turn on its own people. If this were just some defense contractor pork for internal USG networks nobody would really care, but it sounds like they intend to fork most common Internet features while dictating how they operate.
The intention of cutting out bad actors seems to be in the right place, but using "Clean" for the terminology is really unnecessarily inflammatory.
Why the hell does any of this have to be China specific? Tomorrow the bugbear could be anyone else Like, we want clean networks free of foreign influence and sruveillance, full stop. Or are they implying that Five Eyes surveillance is good and OK?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an unsupported assertion. We have no specific data to suggest that this would happen.
I mean, I know that with less than 90 days before one of the largest absentee voting elections in the history of the nation that I would fire 23 USPS administrators on a Friday evening several days after admitting to congress to slowing down mail delivery. That seems reasonable. Right? https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/08/06/postma... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/07/postal-se...
I wasn't totally alarmed by what I read. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I take this as a sort of stamp of approval that a cloud/network/platform isn't compromised by China. It doesn't seem to say, "Only use the U.S. internet" as other commenters have mentioned. The stamp of approval seems to be global (if you look at the list that was mentioned it's worldwide, not just the US).
When I came back to look at the comments I was surprised to see a lot of noise. I feel like something must have flew over my head and maybe someone can explain it to me. I went ahead and read the link again but slower and I still don't understand the reaction I'm seeing on HN.
Maybe it's some sort of state of idealism. People want the internet to be a place that's free from tyranny or government, but that's not what's happening. China/Russia/US/whoever is abusing the internet to gain an upper-hand. The best solution is to reinvent the internet, which I know there are a quite a few projects going on that are trying to accomplish that, but in the meantime what is a government supposed to do? Let other governments siphon their citizen's data without a cost?
Again, I could use an explanation as I must have missed something that a lot of other people are finding very obvious. When a top level comment just says "Make sure you vote in November". I don't understand the context.
Disclaimer: I am definitely not voting for Trump and dislike pretty much everything the administration has done. Yet, I do try to look at everything in silos.
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…
> Furthermore, State is a decade or more behind the game. It is my impression that modern companies that care about security assume that all networks are compromised and act accordingly. Unfortunately far from true. There's a small percentage who have the resource to run this kind of ops. Don't look at FAANG on how security is in companies, they're outliers by far.
We should expect our national-security infrastructure to be more resilient than commercial infrastructure, not less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is some https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/25/huawei-xi...
Is it referencing something specific? It's an editorial referencing other editorials. Is there something direct like PRISM type wikileaks? Considering the NSA hacked and had backdoors in Huawei servers for almost a decade, I imagine direct evidence shouldn't be difficult to produce. https://mashable.com/2014/03/22/nsa-huawei/
Have you tried searching in wikileaks though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This has been known for decades, companies knew, and the way they dealt with this was to only give China obsolete tech or tech about to get out of date, so they didn't care. That's no longer the case as China is catching up fast and really threatening the competitive advantage of truly innovative companies all around the world.
My understanding from the tool & die industry is that’s only been happening the last decade or so. IMO that’s the real issue, because it’s decimating the ability to manufacture here and sure design can happen in the US, but if you can’t build the molds for the latest tech here then it doesn’t matter. Those designs are given straight to China, no need to reverse engineer.