Let's just hope
This would be a valuable contribution to the internet infrastructure, unless Goooo and/or FB decide to control or snoop on the traffic on it. What's the chance of that happening?
Google and Facebook have dumped plans to build an undersea cable between the US and Hong Kong after US security agencies warned that Beijing could use the link to infiltrate American networks. In a revised proposal [PDF] submitted to the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) late last week, the consortium …
Google's primary purpose in existing is parsing lots of data into a useful user model that lets them microtarget. They're not great at it, but their secondary purpose is pretending to parse lots of data in order to microtarget, and to prove that they're doing so they collect lots of data. They're pretty good at that purpose.
It's not easy to capture and store the data coming through a large international cable. Disk speeds aren't sufficient to do it. However, Google has a lot of programmers who work on big data-crunching programs with dubious usefulness, so they have the kind of expertise they need to write a program to extract potentially mineable data from that massive flow. For example, they could track certain metrics of specific addresses to map frequent data flows. Depending on the IP allocation to average American connections, this could be easy (IPV6, IPV4 where the carrier isn't low on addresses) or a little trickier (client is behind CGNAT). Similarly, they could log and store the first few packets of an encrypted flow, where potentially unencrypted initiating information such as domain names or a cleartext HTTP request which hasn't yet been redirected to HTTPS can be found. Is there reason to do this? No. If you're looking to advertise, you wouldn't want to waste that much energy on information that's likely to be polluted and hard to get anyway. However, you also wouldn't do all sorts of other tracking that Google has done, so whether it makes sense isn't the best metric to decide whether Google will attempt it.
Actually they don't.
Do the math.
Which is why I said they would have to target specific streams.
Add to this if the traffic is encrypted (e.g. TLS) Even simple encryption which can be broken in relative time would mean that the traffic would have to be captured the key broken and then gobbled.
Google can get much more worthwhile data by snarfing your DNS requests and from the google analytics which websites still use.
It rather reminds me of all those fears of the French invading through a putative channel tunnel when in reality a bunch of Brits used it to buy up the Dordogne.
Yep, invasion from within - a trawl of UK land registry records for the last 15-20 years would be a start
Of course the internet is just IP regardless of how many intermediaries there are and cutting off this leg of the cable isn't really going to stop the traffic flowing somehow.
But one of the benefits of a direct point to point fibre link that you can achieve very low latency and we already know that stock markets will pay huge money for cutting the round trip times by a millisecond or two.
With Hong Kong being the fourth single largest stock market in the world (according to Wikipedia) I am guessing this is more about trade wars than spying.
You know, if the Spooks had allowed us to have encryption that couldn't be broken, it wouldn't be a problem that the infrastructure routed via China...
...but no, IPSec features and DANE were squashed, because they couldn't man-in-the-middle the connection with their "compromised" root CAs.
You know, if the Spooks had allowed us to have encryption that couldn't be broken, it wouldn't be a problem that the infrastructure routed via China...
Even under this hypothetical circumstance it would still be a mistake. For example:
1. Encryption implementation flaws, along the lines of heartbleed.
2. You don't know what cryptanalysis breakthroughs Government agencies have made, or will make in future.
3. The link can be switched off with the announcement of "technical problems" etc with little comeback. Physically tampering with a cable on the bottom of an ocean is difficult, expensive and liable to leave an embarrassing smoking gun.
4. Potentially interesting bits of traffic can be collected and stored for later decryption if/when that becomes possible.
5. Lots can be done by looking at traffic patterns or by just messing with it.
6. Even today, about 10% of Internet traffic isn't even encrypted.
The Internet runs on redundant paths. So yes, a political shutdown of a route via China would be a nuisance and would reduce global capacity. But no, it wouldn't break the Internet. That's what BGP4 is all about (even when it has a hissy fit like was reported yesterday, it doesn't break the Internet).
Surveillance and weak crypto is a concern. So is DDOS. But the fact that a path goes through China isn't really important even for that; spooks exist everywhere.
This whole "clean Internet" stuff is political grandstanding and technical nonsense. It's just another battlefront in the trade war that Trump has started.
"Although the filing confirms that the The Hong Kong section of the cable is currently built, the companies "are not seeking authority" to operate the section."
So that leg is already built, but we're supposed to believe they are not going to use it? My money is on they will use it, and already have their weasel words read to explain how they were conforming to their own interpretation of what they agreed to.
Do you really think that either compamy is not going to use that wide band pipe to Hong Kong? My guess is that the traffic will flow through an intermediary first, allowing both to say they have no control over the traffic once it leaves their pipe.
Facebook and Google have no problem crossing any lines. Example: Since the 1960s it has been explicitly forbidden to restrict real estate marketing based on race, a practice known as red lining. Facebook had no problem violating the Civil Rights Acts by offering the ability to do specifically that, target real estate ads based on race. What kind of people would even consider doing that?
Has either company ever really paid a cost for their bad acts?
The legislation you’re referring to doesn’t stop someone from only posting adverts in places where only the “desired target audience” can find it. All Facebook offered to do was show the adverts in only the places the advertiser wanted them shown. Your news feed is a different “place” to my news feed, even though we use the same reference string to locate them.
Sadly, it’s too easy to play devils advocate with this one.
From an article on this in the NYT: "Those who chose to could buy ads that excluded ethnic “affinity groups” like African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics in Facebook’s housing advertising category."
A link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/facebook-housing-discrimination.html
OMG the Trump administration sued Facebook for their discriminatory tactics! How is this possible! We have been hearing for the last 3.6 years that everyone in the Trump administration are Evil Racist! Even Carson, who we all know is just a house n****r!
This has to be Fake News I say, FAKE NEWS!
"So that leg is already built, but we're supposed to believe they are not going to use it? My money is on they will use it, and already have their weasel words read to explain how they were conforming to their own interpretation of what they agreed to."
If they haven't landed it in HK then yes, they're not using it.
They may land it in HK in the future if the political situation changes, but its more cost effective to have an approved cable landing in the US/Taiwan/Philippines and cut your losses on HK in the short-term. The HK landing would just be more dead cost.
No conspiracy....