UK spy boss warns China hopes Russia will help it take over tech standards The director of UK intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Sir Jeremy Fleming, has warned that China is trying to introduce "undemocratic values as the default for vast swathes of future tech and the standards that govern it." In a speech delivered on Thursday at the Australian National University's …
Russia's failure in Afghanistan was understandable. It was a mistake for everyone who ever set foot there.
Russia's failure in Ukraine is not understandable. It should have been a win. Maybe not an easy one, but a win, nonetheless.
To have the Russian army bogged down, or even retreating, is a damning indictment of a serious lack of preparation and foresight.
The bear has lost its claws. Russia's credibility as a military threat is in the toilet, and Putin's reputation has been hit for six.
I wonder what mayhem will come from that.
> It should have been a win
No, it should have never happened.
If Putin hadn't been so isolated, mistrusting his own advisers and believing his own bullshit, then he might have known that he could never win in Ukraine.
Most of those 70 years were bang on - it is only in recent years since the overt kleptomaniacs have been in charge that the Russian war machine has failed to receive reinvestment.
The core problem with kleptocracies is the thieves always think they are the primary thief, whereas they are just one of many
When a commissar has a choice to spend some money on either a new training centre with some new front line battle tanks or a dacha and a Porsche or two, where do you think the money will go.
When the people at the top install mechanisms to enable them to skim, the lower minions will use the same tools - corruption will always spread down the chain of command if the environment favours it.
One aspect Putin overlooked is that since the annexe of Crimea, which showed the Ukraine army to be severly lacking, Ukraine has been training it's army since 2014 in a live fire situation as they have been rotating units through the frontline in the Donesk region. There is no better training environment than a live one, especially when the opposing force is using Russian hardware and tactics.
Ukraine always knew something was coming down the line from Russia and they have been preapring since 2014. Now add in that the Russian forces mostly consist of poorer ethinic conscripts from the other parts of Russia which Putin deems expendable, not only does he want to rebuild the USSR but he gets to do ethnic cleasning at the same time.
Russia's failure in Ukraine is not understandable. It should have been a win. Maybe not an easy one, but a win, nonetheless.
Why?
Ukraine reinforced its army since 2014. Russian invasion isn't really a surprise. Ukraine has also a long story of resistance. Armed resistance against the Soviet regime last from 1945 to 1950, despite the deportation of 900,000 Ukrainians in Siberia.
What is surprising for me is the lack of Russian aerial superiority.
They are looking a lot more like Saddam Hussein's "Republican Guard", which prior to January of 1991, was highly respected and even feared.
But Russia still has nukes, and Pootie just might be insane enough to USE them. Dammit.
[it also does not help that the Biden "administration" is still doing things to irritate and antagonize Pootie rather than doing what would REALLY be effective, i.e. project STRENGTH and drop the restrictions on USA domestic oil production, especially in Alaska, and let the world buy OUR oil and natural gas at prices below that being sold by Russia (yes people are still buying Russia's oil and gas), so that Pootie will REALLY get an economic hurt put on him, instead of :"what they are actually doing right now"]
On tech standards, China could simply create its own version of the ISO. Base it on them for compatibility initially, and release the docs for free.
An awful lot of PhD thesus are coming out of China too, compared to us lot. Something to do with actually recognising and funding education instead of using it as a cash cow.
Many of my former university researcher colleagues have left and gone into commercial roles instead. Better hours , conditions and pay. Says it all.
I have been interviewing people for IT jobs for twenty years and I can guarantee you the level of useful education has been dropping precipitously for the last ten and the level of self-centered woke bullshit has gone through the roof. We have dropped three new starters this year alone because they i) could not cope with normal work pressure/deadlines and ii) expected us to completely change our working environment to suit them. Universities are finished as feeders to actual work places.
"On tech standards, China could simply create its own version of the ISO."
It could. But it would be pointless unless China's ISO-Lite was recognised/endorsed by the rest of the world. Which simply wouldn't happen. Besides, it's far easier and quicker to take control of existing Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) by throwing money of them, flooding the SDO with documents for rubber-stamping, outnumbering the opposition and installing their stooges in leadership positions. Which is what China has been doing for several years.
Some Chinese researchers are told they won't get a PHD unless they author a standard at $SDO. That tends to focus minds, even though it's bad for the SDO. [Quantity, not quality...] I doubt students at western universities are forced to comply with those sorts of incentives.
Chinese technology always comes with at least one weak point.
Also, Chinese IT always comes with brazen spyware, even worse than the Google-FB-MSFT-CIA spyware.
The Chicoms can build 777G phone networks and phones with 6 cameras on each side.
I will stick with a low-bandwidth Linux laptop from Bulgaria, without high speed backdoors.
Well, this is exactly the point.
China can create as many standards as it likes. Nobody else has to use them.
If 'New IP' has flaws then the rest of the Internet will use old IP or Western IP or whatever else it chooses. China can choose how to interact with the rest of the Internet the way it does now.
Although in the UK I suspect the Government will leap aboard the New IP train the moment they hear it offers them them ways to control the Internet. Doesn't seem to matter who we vote for, the answer is always 'Internet bad!'.
China can create as many standards as it likes. Nobody else has to use them.
Microsoft can make as many (shitty) Word standards as it likes. Nobody else has to use them. How did that turn out again?
If 'New IP' has flaws then the rest of the Internet will use old IP or Western IP or whatever else it chooses.
If HTML/PHP/Word/PowerPoint/x86 processors/Windows/SMB etc have flaws, the rest of the world will use something else. I see.
Although in the UK I suspect the Government will leap aboard the New IP train the moment they hear it offers them them ways to control the Internet.
That's unlikely to happen because the Government has told Huawei to fuck off.
From the article: "China's choice of standards bodies is widely interpreted as forum shopping, to find a receptive audience for a proposal that would not be accepted by current gatekeepers."
And the idea of Russia being their new customers (NOTE: Russia has about 1/10 of China's population, 146 million vs 1.42 billion) is NOT going to make a whole lot of difference in the number of people deploying their new 'standard'. So the world would end up with "an internet": and "a seperate Chinanet". Big whoop. China has their own internal market for things anyway. It's where all of the stuff made with (alleged) patent and copyright violations (allegedly) get sold.
Besides, the problem with communism and totalitarianism is that, with the exception of an elite group of favored individuals, innovation is effectively DISCOURAGED. 'Evolutionary' development would quickly stagnate, the overall quality would be poor, and nobody would DARE point out problems for fear of losing one's job or (worse) getting "disappeared" merely for 'rocking the boat'. Bad social credit if you do not refer to the inventor as the smartest person on the planet, and your bosses as both kind *AND* wise as well as fair and just.
And, after some recent news about Universities in the USA being 'soft targes' for stealing innovation, you have to wonder how much of China's tech proposal originated inside the USA or EU or UK or anywhere ELSE for that matter, and was simply stolen/co-opted/etc. by the CCP for their own purposes...
@bombastic bob
I think we have to accept the simple fact that China has understood the value of education for a very long time.
I doubt there are many universities in the world without Chinese students.
When I studied Computer Science in England long ago, of course there was one bright Chinese guy too.
This rant by Michio Kaku from almost 20 years ago tells it well, although I dislike his use of the word "genius".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrE9z1JFT1Y
I think we in the west should be deeply concerned with our educational systems.
Education for profit is not a good solution.
Something even the Soviets understood not giving up on STEM in education.
Going on about stealing and copying solves no problems, and there is always that feeling of "sour grapes" with it.
It is high time for Europe (no EU needed for this purpose) to build our own computers and communication systems. Free of the American, Russian or Chicom spyware.
I prefer a small, secure computer to a high speed, blinking backdoor.
We already have the pieces:
ARM CPU
OLIMEX laptop
Infineon, STM, NXP semiconductors
Trolltech GUI
seL4 operating system
INRIA proven correct C compiler
Modula-2
Eiffel
Nokia
DeltaChat secure, GDPR compatible messenger
Except that Europe can't actually build them, since ARM is fabless, there is no advanced substrate manufacturing (yet, in 2/3 years things might change), there is very little advanced PCB manufacturing (i.e. no high-frequency communications), no big optical fiber companies (no photonics for comms, datacenters etc.), there is no IP or manufacturing for advanced storage, no high-volume display manufacturing, ... The list could go on.
Even if one managed to get that on the continent, one would still be missing the manufacturing of the materials (polymers, metals, silicon) for those devices.
This new wave of protectionism and "independence" in the name of security is pushing in the opposite direction, calling to eliminate (regardless of feasibility) the mutually beneficial trade relationships which are one of the main instruments in diplomacy.
Not completely true, there are some semiconductor fabricators in Europe, although sadly very few compared to China, USA, or Japan. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants
A major lithography equipment maker, ASML, is Dutch (www.asml.com). Stuck to my mind because a fund I invest in has shares in it.
Just a note viewed from our profession, not the museum:
Sorry guys... The ASML litho is just one of the 100 machines you need to make proper semiconductors. Apart this newest tech we have given all away to the Chinese, basically for free. Do not blame them, but blame the managers that acted on doing 'off shoring' for production.
And hear hear... with all the Semi-Conductor misery now all of a sudden they are talking about 'on shoring' and building new factories in Europe and the US.
To my humble opinion they belong in prison..... but hey, they quickly hop onto the next 'victim' INC. to completely dismantle it again, the same as the last one where they have 'worked'. I have seen this numerous times and I am sick of it. Parasites, that is what they are. No one, really no one could ever explain to me why a machine running here in Europe must be more expensive than in Shenzhen.
I prefer a 10 year old computer with high security over a maximum speed American-Backdoored Wintel or Android computer. We can easily produce such a computer with the Dresden fabs.
National sovereignty means first and foremost protecting your thoughts and communications from any foreign power. And that is true not just for leaders, but a serious section of politicians, military and industry, too.
Modula-2? As a Pascal programmer I looked forward to the commercial and readily available release of this language as an improvement to Pascal back in the 1980's.
Imagine my surprise when I first got it and the FTL Modula-2 compiler started rejecting variable names, procedure and function calls left, right and centre for no apparent reason and upon closer inspection I identified the problem because for example lets say you use the mathematical arctan function, or is it the Arctan or ArcTan function instead?
I don't understand for what unknown or even insane reason Niklaus Wirth decided to introduce case sensitivity where it wasn't there previously in Pascal.
This meant not only did you have to remember the name which is easy enough but also the capitalization of each letter in the name which is next to impossible just to get it to pass through the compiler, and the English language consists of only 26 letters and definitely not 52 of them.
Sadly, for this reason alone I pretty much dropped using it the day after I got it and haven't touched it since.
"It is high time for Europe (no EU needed for this purpose) ..."
True. However, when almost all of the major players are EU members, and the budget for such strategic thinking has to come from *somewhere*, the EU is the logical place for such an initiative to come from.
An alternative structure might look something like the ESA... but there is blatantly not the political will, nor the budget in post(?) COVID times to do that in this industry.
For those non EU European countries who might want in... well... nothing's stopping you doing your own thing. Perhaps the EU will let you join as a junior partner?
On the screen of a 1S91 radar (NATO - part of the SA6 system) a MiG, of Ukrainian or Russian origin is just a blip. No differentiators. I highly doubt an F16 can be differentiated from a MiG either tbh.
IFF is not that easy in a shooting war when you have at best seconds to decide whether to fire, or shut down the radar to avoid detection and potential counterattack. Assuming you have IFF equipment, and whether it's correctly configured. And the crew are well trained in the systems use.
Given other elements of Russian logistics and planning in their campaign to date; I would not bank on AA units being significantly better organised than any of the rest; though they are more likely as specialists to have been in role for some time.
NATO has brought down it's own planes on more than one occasion giving rise to the difficulty of the problem, no matter the technology thrown at the wall.
yes, "friendly fire" incidents are a constant risk on the battlefield. But currently there aren't many Ukrainian pilots flying MIGs, if any at all (have they received the MIGs from Poland? last I heard they have not, for reasons that anger me).
Anyway, if there are no MIGs being piloted by Ukrainians, the Russian soldiers should know better, but apparently they do not (at least as indicated by news reports, FWIW).
Couple that with low morale and apparently improper/inadequate training of a mostly conscripted fighting force [that may only be motivated by threats and intimidation] and you get the kinds of things we appear to be seeing.
Might not be many Ukrainian MiG's flying now, but the drone fleet is doing a pretty good job of incessant harassment tactics.
They got that lesson off the old Pe-2 night bomber regiments. As a warplane; using an obsolete trainer aircraft as a night bomber might seem illogical; however, when your enemies are being kept awake all night by threat of ambush, the morale and fatigue impact don't take long to accumulate.
China is trying to introduce "undemocratic values as the default for vast swathes of future tech and the standards that govern it."
I don't remember the standards introduced by the US govt and companies, being decided upon democratically. Some are good, but others are dire. The fact that M$ Word format is the default standard for documents is dire.
Let's not confuse things.
ISO is a standard. IEEE makes standards, ASTM makes standards. IETF makes standards. And they are made rather democratically on technical merits.
"Some are good, but others are dire. The fact that M$ Word format is the default standard for documents is dire."
That is not a standard, that is history (surely with politics involved) and uneducated consumers. Just like why Windows is the most used OS, Google the most used search engine, etc. etc.
With China, we are talking about a system that until 1989 condemned relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang theory on the basis that they were not Marxist theories (e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243755811_Organized_criticism_of_Einstein_and_relativity_in_China_1949-1989). And that political system has not changed.
"Some are good, but others are dire. The fact that M$ Word format is the default standard for documents is dire."
That is not a standard, that is history (surely with politics involved) and uneducated consumers.
History states that Microsoft packed the relevant standards committee to get .docx etc declared standards. This might have had something to do with major procurement requirements mandating standard file formats. So it might be dire but it is, in fact, a de jure standard, not just a default and by much the same means as China now seems to be pushing according to the article.
Isn't that what China is already doing though? Just because they choose to do that, it doesn't mean that everybody else is going to. If it comes down to a competition between the current decentralised Internet, and a bureaucratic, centrally controlled Chinternet, I can guess fairly easily which one is going to win on grounds of efficiency alone, let alone freedom. There's a reason why AOL disappeared and the web replaced that primitive idea. The amount of cost and effort needed when trying to control everything is not going to be small when you try and scale it up to billions of users.
"The amount of cost and effort needed when trying to control everything is not going to be small when you try and scale it up to billions of users."
And yet, the likes of Facebook are trying very hard to do exactly that all over again.
There's a reason why AOL disappeared
And yet, there's Fa[e]ceB[an,ook], Tw[a,i]tter, Google[-ism], Insta-[Sh,gr]am, and the rest of 'em, all trying to control their fifedoms on 'teh intarwebs'.
So I wish this were true, the reason why AOL disappeared being the need to control too much and losing to freedom. But I fear it is NOT. More likely, they just could not compete with the overall intarwebs as compared to their own offerings, at the price they charged for the services they offered. Similarly, CompuServe.
And the ones trying to be gatekeeper are still jockeying for position and the CCP wants in, too.
The FCC imposed sanctions on Huawei, ZTE, ... and not to long after the naughty parties, along with many a new Chinese member subscribed to the RISC V organisation, and almost immediately a motion was proposed and voted on the relocation of the organisation from the US to Switzerland. A number of the same sanctioned Chinese entities have now subscribed to be voting members of the like of the Linux foundation, but not yet a majority, though at just $50,000 a vote, wouldn't take much to see a few foundations follow RISC V, initially to just somewhere outside US or EU control.
FTA: "But here again, it's clear that Putin has miscalculated. President Zelensky's information operation has shown itself to be extremely effective. It's agile, multi-platform, multi-media and extremely well-tailored to different audiences.
by banning everything that doesn't conform to their narrative. if anything this shows western hypocrisy - they only want to hear there own voice.
Most world democracies have gone authoritarian in the face of existential threats. For example. the UK planned to use poison gas on the invasion beaches when the enemy landed in WWII. For the Ukraine this war is consuming their whole world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom -> Proposed use in World War II
"by banning everything that doesn't conform to their narrative. if anything this shows western hypocrisy - they only want to hear there own voice."
And yet, people in "the West" can still access the Russian side of the story, albeit, depending on the source, often plastered with "FAKE" and some very plausible reasons why it's so labelled, eg demonstrable proof a video was made years earlier in a different country.
Meanwhile, in Russia, if you don't know how to use a VPN you are almost exclusively limited to the Kremilin vision of the the "Truth".
The Atlantic recently published a really enlightening article about Putin's military vision, which goes a long way to explaining the current situation. Apparently, he thinks he's fighting WW2. Another article from the same source seems to confirm this, based on information from the front lines.
@Mike 137
Reassuring perhaps, but lets not forget the good guys, the Russians, took Berlin all the same.
And I am afraid the war about Ukraine is far from over, sadly.
I am not convinced Putin can afford to give up just yet.
There is a big difference between defending one's own home and country to running around in a foreign country with no great enthusiasm for any of it.
The Finn against the Russians in WW2 and why not the Americans in Vietnam prove it well.
A typical result when the big guy has problems is his willingness to go for the big guns and terror bombing.
We should try not look at this as an interesting computer game.
"the internet community has pushed back strongly against China's plan for a "New IP" standard that has potential to fragment the internet and allow more central control."
It isn't China's plan. It's not even Huawei's plan. It's just one big cheese in Huawei's plan. But indeed, it hasn't made any headway in the IETF, and Internet product makers (including Huawei) and enterprise or carrier Internet operators (including Chinese operators) use IETF standards for the Internet. Some aspects of "New IP" might influence some future IETF standards, but the effort at ITU will produce no concrete results.
P.S. China doesn't need to create a Chinese ITU; look up who runs the one in Geneva.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
