US Department of Homeland Security warns American business not to use Chinese tech or let data behind the Great Firewall The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has published a guide to the terrifying risks that businesses will expose themselves to if they use tech created in the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) or engage in any business activity with the Middle Kingdom. The fifteen-page “Data Security Business Advisory” [PDF] …
Wasn't saying it as a conspiracy theory, I don't believe in that bollocks, it was just a point wanted to say :) as I typed it, I knew it wouldn't be possible as someone in Apple obviously would get random samples of built kit from the Chinese factory and would of course check. I still think the point is valid though.
If Trump thinks pure Chinese kit is comprised, why doesn't he question anything that is America owned yet made in China? Much less chance of said kit being compromised if the American company does proper checks but you could potentially just do the same with the pure Chinese kit.
World of difference between "secret" chips and functionality in an electronic device and chips in a vaccine, but there you go.
{carnivore_bait}
I'm not worried about Bill Gates tracking me, but I would be worried if they collected a DNA sample from everyone, say under the guise of a test for some mythical pandemic, matched to your name and address, and then administered the alleged vaccine from a syringe or ampule that had been one of many taken from a rack or tray in a certain sequence, since they could match "tray n1, row n2, column n3" - and the id number of the chip inside it - to the person receiving it.
{/carnivore_bait}
Anon because I don't want them to track me, obs.
That vaccine thing is ludicrous, but the NSA/large corporations are tracking you everywhere you take you smartphone right now and if not them other intelligence agencies. Does anyone actually review the data? Not unless the algorithms flag it or they have a reason to suspect you. But they are gathering data on nearly everyone all the time.
Some people really appear to believe that "adding a chip" is just pasting it on, it will be totally invisible, unnoticeable, and yet it will work perfectly. All other chips and their software will immediately do its bidding so it can use the ether to communicate with its Masters.
Too much watching of not-the-greatest Hollywood productions, maybe...
Well, I'm sure to not be the only voice to ask if the United States Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) fifteen-page “Data Security Business Advisory” [PDF] is irrefutable proof positive Uncle Sam has slipped into the deep and dark desponds which server paranoid schizophrenia as fodder and feed to try and protect a rotten body riddled to excess with its wares?
So much for that ages old stalwart adage of competition being the lifeblood of open free markets and business enterprise ..... although the markets have been rigged forever since whenever it was realised by an arrogant, never ever thought we'd be found out few, fickle fantasies only require silent obedient labour and ignorant worker bees can be easily capitalised with public debt and fancy printed paper as a currency for massive private profit and colossal population captivation and willing engagement ....... Effective Practical Capture and Remote Virtual Enslavement.
That is not to say that such is not a great plan, for its elegant and attractive simplicity is a joy to behold and admire, the problem and shame is that it is administered and exercised so abysmally by executive elites not up to the tasks required of the future as future directors/present producers.
It is easily fixed though with a radical change needed resulting in the engagement of Future Greater Grand Task Masters. Such is certainly the most wise and surely simplest of any available option if one wants to escape the crushing destructive defeats and ignominious increasingly rapid annihilations that competing against or opposing them deliver out of the blue, totally unexpected and with one completely unprepared for the consequences resulting in such ill-conceived actions.
"privacy laws"
In theory, yes but if you look at for example, Pompeo's comments and voting history in Congress regarding privacy and surveillance, it is clear that even in the West and the 'Land of the free™', our so called leaders don't trust us with our own thoughts.
I got a very interesting letter from the DGSI (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure) warning about the risks of using clouds outside EU. Very enlightening.
So the UK is a military threat to the EU! .... Yet Another Anonymous Coward
With the current military thinking and politically incorrect and inept leaderships, is the UK no threat to anybody or anything, YAAC ...... other than themselves and the local natives who would mindlessly support them, that is.
The world has changed and they definitely haven't in order to stay way out in front and ahead in the Great and Greater IntelAIgent Games Fields of Play and Virtual ACTivity for Programmed AI Realisation.
Some may squawk and occasionally appear to talk the talk with some interesting smalltalk but not are equipped to walk the walk and lead in any number of new ways which deliver enlightening directions. And that's an endemic systemic failing and indicative of a lack of necessary future intelligence right at the top of those executive trees and administrative branches.
I think that sometimes somebody else has got control of the account. That one mostly made sense. ..... Doctor Syntax
I'll take that as a compliment and evidence of great stealthy progress having been made, Doc, and would only require knowledge of what little you do not make sense of to allow us more fully to succeed in sharing what is widely known in parts/spaces/places around here for transfer and transmission and teleportation to anywhere elsewhere.
And as far as I am aware regarding ... "I think that sometimes somebody else has got control of the account." ..... I don't think so, so therefore that is a past mistake sometimes made in the present which may easily blight and misdirect your future.
So it's dark and frosty outside, it's Christmas Eve (yeah!) And now I know what " Haikus" means/is! Gotta love a forum that you can learn something new from, that had nothing to do with the original subject! Happy Days..☺️ (Oh... and whilst Christmas Eve, a Merry Christmas to all, -if that's not to off topic either? LOL
We are advised by our controllers not to use Chinese kit but nobody concerned with security should give US products any shelter either.
In fact, we need to be wary of anywhere that gives US agencies free run - any members of "5 eyes" for example.If Russia was to offer anything, I would have difficulty keeping a straight face so who are we left with?
Does the Republic of Sealand still exist?
There will soon be a colony on Mars. We will all be able to go there and claim independence from "the Earthers".
Note: We need international laws now to stop countries claiming regions of other planets, moons, etc. "as theirs" - at the very least, they need to "belong" to everyone. Oh, that's going to be a fun game...
And the only way to enforce it is if your country has similar powers of their own.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims that the only reason real progress was made in space has always been military motivated. "If China announced a base on Mars, the USA would have one there within 3 years." Right now China is essentially recreating the Apollo program, so it makes sense.
In Scott Manley's video, "The 10 Dumbest Mistakes in Space Exploration," he lists #1 as the UK developing an orbital rocket, then canning it. It tied for 1st place with the entire Space Shuttle program. https://youtu.be/Xsqe3utT6rs?t=798
>UK developing an orbital rocket, then canning it
I'm not sure about that.
Was the UK going to continue developing it through the 70s,80s,90s with the accompanying ICBM program to justify the development costs ?
Was it going to be a (subsidised) commercial rival to Ariane ?
Or would it be used for a couple of UK military launches a decade?
From what I've read, Ariane space was helped greatly by the cancellation of it. British boffins freely shared details of their work with both French & German counterparts afterwards. Even old Blue Streak parts were used for the first Ariane launches.
And because "rocket science is easy, rocket engineering is hard", it's said that once the team that understands their launch system gets dismantled, that collective knowledge essentially evaporates. To start again means essentially starting from scratch.
At the time it was true there weren't many commercial applications, but hopefully it was obvious that would change in the future. It's been claimed that to tally all the launch costs for UK satellites on foreign boosters to date, it would've been cheaper to keep the internal development going.
The super heavy lift launcher market is mostly already occupied by commercial companies now. Hopefully the growing small-sat market has potential for Skylon and Virgin Galactic. But even that market has competition from NZ's Rocket Lab now, and a few others.
> modern commercial Ariane launchers (certainly the A4/A5) are basically French ICMBs
Hm, what? Really? Somehow I really doubt that, considering nuclear warheads can be made into briefcase size, <10kg. Commercial satellite launchers like the Ariane 4 can launch >2000kg into orbit. ICBMs don't even need the capability to reach low-earth-orbit, since a sub-orbital trajectory that reaches half-way round the world can reach any point on the world.
Orbital launch capabilities, when they were first demonstrated by the USSR, were merely a scare tactic. Sputnik was essentially the same mass & size of a nuclear warhead. They demonstrated the USSR missiles were not only capable of sending warheads to the USA, but also anywhere on the planet.
Literally all orbital capabilities developed beyond that only added to exploration, and spying. The larger mass satellites were first for spy telescopes, but also convenient for commercial applications like satellite TV.
I can't believe the large-mass, high-capability Ariane rockets would also be used for nuclear ICBM rockets. Not only are they hugely over-capable, most liquid fuels, even if not cryogenic, are highly-corrosive, can't be stored for long periods in regular tanks. Solid rocket fuel is much better for ICBMs. Even the Indians and Chinese use it for main-stage boosters on their non-military payloads.
Quote
"I can't believe the large-mass, high-capability Ariane rockets would also be used for nuclear ICBM rockets. Not only are they hugely over-capable, most liquid fuels, even if not cryogenic, are highly-corrosive, can't be stored for long periods in regular tanks. Solid rocket fuel is much better for ICBMs."
In the first days of ICBMs it could take 20hrs to fill and prep a missile to launch with liquid fuels ... which is fine if you want to fire at the enemy 1 day after you've said "stop within 24hrs or you'll die"
Sadly it came to notice that you could secretly fill your rockets up, fire them at the enemy and he gets 8-10 mins warning before his rockets get blown up... hence the need for solid fuel rockets that could launch the instant the pyrotechnic ignition charges go off inside the thing.
Arriance rockets as ICBMs? only if you're aiming at the alien moonbase on the far side and they've got laser guns to shoot down incoming rockets
That's not what I said.
The Ariane 4/5 (not familiar with earlier models) were based on French ICBMS
The Ariane4 engines are from their 1980s land based missile and the Ariane5 solid fuel boosters are from France's submarine new submarine based model.
ie the French defence budget ( which is like all defence budgets unlimited) is used to subsidise/hide the cost of the Ariane development, in the same way as the US Delta. So simply deciding that you are going to have a space program without also developing your own nuclear missiles doesn't work out $$$$ wise.
Probably the real reason for the "encouragement" to the UK to drop their rocket program from the USA wasn't the competition in the space business, it was that with it the UK wouldn't be able, financially, to buy Polaris / Trident
Yes, and the Sealander government has an excellent track record of standing up for privacy of people who aren't even sure it exists... </sarcasm>
Sealand exists, in so far as it's a real thing at all, on sufferance. It exists solely because destroying it once and for all would look bad. To maintain that sufferance, it needs to not be a pain in the arse to its host country. It carefully avoids drawing official attention to itself.
So China is to be avoided by everyone, the US is to be avoided by EU companies due to weak privacy laws... does that mean if you dare stray outside the safety of the EU, one's data and privacy will be instantly assaulted and ripped to shreds by (Asian) dragons and fake eagles (Bald Eagle)?
But meanwhile European governments are lobbying to have point-to-point encryption outlawed so that they can keep snooping on communications. To keep the children safe, of course.
Anyone remember when we could still pretend the Stasi and KGB were the bad guys?
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022
