China trying to export its Great Firewall and governance model China is actively trying to export its internal internet governance model, according to a paper from the International Cyber Policy Centre at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Titled "China's cyber vision: How the Cyberspace Administration of China is building a new consensus on global internet governance", the paper …
Quite why the International Cyber Policy Centre at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute would wish to so comprehensively publicly destroy all credibility in their office and abilities is a question to ponder and wonder at.
Whatever anyone was paid for that paper ...."China's cyber vision: How the Cyberspace Administration of China is building a new consensus on global internet governance” ..... is the price not nearly enough in comparison to the cost.
International Cyber Policy Centre at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute!
Come on I'm an Ozzy had a good laugh at that.
Murcia and china need to just join together, what the china govt wants the us corporation's already have.
the puppets are just Muppets,
govt is like the ocean,
the bururocates are the water and there for ever.
the politions are the tide and come reek havoc and fuck off.
Left loves the idea once repackaged as fake news control to silence those who dont follow the social engineering goals.
Right loves the idea once repackaged as fact checking to silence those who dont follow the social engineering goals.
The battle used to be totalitarians versus free. Now we mostly blindly choose our selected tyrants under the delusion voting matters. What matters is who chooses and advertises the choices, such as they are.
What matters is who chooses and advertises the choices, such as they are. .... Denarius
Oh? Ok! That makes a lot of sense. And wow, that's an extremely obvious target-rich environment presenting itself virtually to every tier and manner of discontent harbouring and disadvantaging good governance with an exceptional and exhausting range of both justifiable and mercenary malcontents bent on addressing and reversing misfortunes.
Who chooses and advertises the choices, such as they are for those leaders and media machines, is one poisoned chalice of a job and a hell of a dangerous task to not get right almost all of the time ..... for some of those wrong choices reveal and deliver there is no place to hide to escape punitive crushing sanction where rough natural justice resides and presides/rules and reigns.
Vergil's original statement was "I fear the Greeks, even when they come bearing gifts", implying that despite the gifts being something to be desired (sweeteners), the Greeks were to be feared. This implies the reverse - that the gifts themselves are to be feared (and they are). However, in the recent UK DCMS proposal 'Data A new direction' paragraphs 212-215 suggest that HM Gov. is contemplating communications content monitoring to combat 'Nuisance and fraudulent calls'.
I think we should remember that US President James Madison (1751-1836) said: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ... The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home..If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
You are close to the real danger. All governments would love to control content on the Internet more than they can today. Probably not to the same extent as the Chinese government already does, but still. It's no different than their historical desire to control what's in the newspapers, on the radio, and on TV.
So a proposal from China that asks for too much, that they can tone down and then sell as the result of a great diplomatic success, might be just the ticket for many governments.
The danger doesn't lie in an openly announced conference. It lies in a much more shady organisation calling itself the Internet Governance Forum, and in the ITU in its own Dark Tower of Mordor in Geneva.
China might be deplorable in any number of ways, but restricting movement of personal data isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Most nations try to control access to data. GDPR places restrictions on the movement of personal data, is the EU trying to "control the internet within its borders"?
China's attitude is arguably better than that of the US seeking to control the internet outside its borders... "All your data belongs to us!"
Dominating standards committees comes straight out of the American playbook:
- Microsoft's extensive efforts to get ISO/IEC 29500 approved.
- The NSA getting Dual_EC_DRBG included in NIST SP 800-90A.
Standards committees have been very poor at preventing takeover by large organisations (companies/countries) with an agenda. Participation in a standards committee requires an extremely high tolerance level for nit-picking bureaucracy, which is usually valued far more highly than technical ability. As a result, the techies, who know what they are talking about, get sidelined by the bureaucrats and administrators who know how to play the system, and are happy to play a long game. Some people/organisations/countries are very professional. Others, less so.
Ideally, none.
Germany, much less China, does not need to know about my surfing habits in France.
This sickness about sharing data is the beginning of the end of freedom and democracy. The NSA is running roughshod over everybody's rights and nobody is controlling it.
I absolutely agree that a country's citizen's activity should stay in that country.
The only data that should be shared is data concerning Interpol and global police operations - which have warrants to justify their activity.
Surfing habits, clearly not, but I really fail to see why even our government should know about it.
However, there are plenty of other cases where data sharing is more legit, such as income information to hunt tax evasion.
And that is not something new or revolutionary, as France and China have had an agreement for such data exchange since 1984.
"The only data that should be shared is data concerning Interpol and global police operations"
That's a bit too narrow I think. You don't really want to shut down all international commerce I expect.
And laws making the activities of the NSA,CIA and their numerous counterparts in other countries illegal are kind of pointless. Intelligence Agencies don't care if they are breaking other nation's laws. Breaking laws is one of the things they do. (Although a lot of their activity like reading and analyzing foreign newspapers is quite legal and seems harmless and appropriate).
But laws constraining Google, Facebook, et. al. from spying on people seem entirely reasonable and proper. Even more effective, might be to tax their data stores at rates high enough to discourage retention of much more than basic login identification and the details of active transactions. Unfortunately, I can't begin to figure out how that can be done. I suspect it's impractical.
Bit rich coming from a 5 eyes country and I suspect they just published it as a proxy to hide the real source.
Between the NSA snooping on all citizens of not just one country, but many and the MPAA and RIAA censoring websites in many countries one has to wonder who is learning from who when it comes to the west and China.
If a Facebook or payment alternative came to be that was not under American control, they would fight tooth and nail to destroy it or take it over. China is no different.
China is not going to convince anyone attending this event to do anything they dont want to do. Everyone will push their own agendas and maybe politics will be used to try and force some co-operation.
Same shit, different day.
The only difference here is that unlike other Western democracies, China is transparent about its intentions. Yes, they want strict surveillance of their citizens, they want to tightly control the message, they care about the sovereignty. Show me a government in its right mind that has opposite interests.
Well I'm not sure about "in its right mind".
Yes governments all across the world would love to follow China's surveillance and internet restriction standards, in order to entrench themselves in power.
However that definitely does not make it right.
You know, if the REAL mission of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and other western nations were to promote democracy, then issues like standards would be decided based on technical votes cast on behalf of the nations, with the population base of the nation voting determining the weight of that vote.
When you're talking about nations with populations in the billion mark, I dare say they should have a say in global resource specifications alongside everyone else. Regardless of how anyone feels about the politics involved.
No, they wouldn't be. Most standards do not have the weight of law, so holding an election for the technical expert who will cast your country's vote is just stupid. Even for standards that do have a connection to laws, the local country should make those on its own--we allow each country to decide what it will view as crimes rather than letting the biggest countries decide it for everyone. Nobody is arguing that China should be excluded from making standards but instead that it should be done with caution because some of the attempts are organized for reasons other than technical superiority.
Oh, yes, well clearly those from other nations never have ulterior motives.
Honestly the anti-China scare mongering in western media lately is as laughable as the anti-Russian scare-mongering of old. By the time you hit 57, it is pretty clear it is all a game of posturing, full of sound and fury that in the end signifiies nothing. :)
Actually that should be: Beware of Totalitarians bearing internet governance proposals.
Then it makes sense.
But that's the problem. Everyone's so hung up on "left" and "right" that they miss the real battle: Totalitarian vs. Libertarian. The reason why the left and right are identical in all but badging at the extremes is that both ideologies inevitably gravitate toward some sort of dictatorship / single party state as governance. (You can't put together a five year plan, remove the counter-revolutionaries / undesirables / recidivists and rewrite history to make yourselves look like heroes rather than mass-murderers if you're likely to lose power in a couple of years' time).
This is *exactly* why IPV-6 is such a bad idea. It is sooo easy for the Chinese to use the spying properties of this protocol.
And the ones shouting that we are outnumbered in IP Addresses and that we need IPV-6? Please switch on your Address Translating Tables and a new IP world will open up for you, as if you create a new galaxy ;-)
Well they got told the whole internet was social party property and now they want to whine about the threats of Russian & Chinese intelligence.. Russia & China had the last time I checked banned Windows from America everywhere... Do they know something we don't? Anyone asked there Politician what the status of the system once known as the "Dead Hand" was in today's technospeak.. Oh wait that's right, it would imply that all your tech is Chinese and Russian and Social and your some spying tit!
Its not like they didn't give it away (pardon the pun) Major Coronal - Major Kernel.. Oh sweet fu** me! PLAN (9) from Outer Space = PLAN - Peoples Liberation Armies Navy... Ah Pervy Andy the duke of the navy and his love for Kiddies with his Republican friends! The big secret of the Russian federation - they're all bankers! (Wankers!) - Royal family NAZI's oh ah his RH Prince Philip - German by birth... Donald Trump... No Donald Drumph.. Stasi Party, just ask Angela Merkel.
Sitting there listening to them give it all that... European Union.. Yeah that fell flat on it's ass.. An the Germans love us for it!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
