Re: It's all about the money
I wonder what would happen if China played the US at their own game.
"You want a clean path? Ok - we'll cut everything American out of our infra/country and see how you get on" - let the games commence!
49 posts • joined 14 Jul 2020
I think if you go far back enough - almost all countries have taken advantage of another country(ies) to get higher up the ladder in terms of economic growth - The UK did it to the "empire" and "commonwealth" - the US itself was founded on insurrection etc.
I'm not supporting China, but China isn't doing anything new which other countries haven't done before
Once again we see the dastardly work of all those foreigners at play here - we need to immediately introduce enforced repatriations of all people who are not ethnically from the country in which they reside - or to put them into camps where they can be monitored to ensure they are good citizens.
The above policy should only apply to 5/13 eye countries of course - all people who are from 5/13 eye countries living in countries where they are not ethnically from are - of course - completely reliable and trustworthy.
So given this memorandum - where is the limit of what is acceptable in a cyberwarfare scenario.
If all traffic lights are set to green, all water purification measures are switched off intermittently - all train routing is randomised, aircraft routing systems compromised etc - this will obviously result in the loss of human life - whether it be the new Axis (Russia, Iran or China) or Allies (5 eyes et al)
How do you draw a limit - is it a free for all ? Why don't we just start killing everyone ? It's the ultimate in equal opportunities.
This is like Aesops fable.
Whatever Huawei or China does to dissuade would never be enough. Do you want China to turn round and say "If Huawei finds any crimes being committed against any parties then we allow them not to have to inform us". Do Western companies operate with the same parameters ?
In the UK, if you go into hospital with a gunshot wound the medics are obligated to inform the police - on the face of it there's no real need for this - but we understand it's because a serious crime has taken place - are you saying because you believe China to be a totalitarian state then subversion is Ok ? Does this mean if someone doesn't believe the Western system is ok then they can do the same thing ?
Just so that you're aware - in your last paragraph if you replaced all references to China to America the statement would be equally as valid.
Also - for the record - I don't think one country is better than another - I hate everyone equally.
Ever heard of the phrase "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist?"
Every country has done something bad - either now or in the past - why is Britain selling weapons overseas now? In large companies you have to undergo training courses that tell you that although something may not be illegal, you have a moral obligation to do the right thing and any disciplinary will look at whether you did so and the reasons for doing so. Can Britain say it is/was morally correct to sell arms?
Don't get me wrong - there's always a way you can justify something - but morally if person a sold a gun to person x who then used it to kill person y - surely person a has a legal part to play in any repercussions that follow from this?
Let's not talk about Tony Blair and 45 minutes ... a country was invaded off the back of that decision and nothing was found. (On a side note, given the Allies have got access to the country, I don't know why they don't just build a base on the sly, and turn around and say "FOUND IT") - justtification complete - absolute vindication!
Why is America's military budget so big - I can't remember the stats, but I think it is larger than the combination of the next 3 countries underneath it - it's ok when America's on your side, but what if they're not?
I could go on ... but essentially my point is this - all humans have an element of evil in them - and countries are collections of people.
In terms of Britain, their entire empire is essentially based on domination of other countries - sorry - I mean bringing truth, freedom and democracy - my bad.
America is founded on insurrection - everyone apart from the indigenous people are immigrants - again domination.
New Zealand - again domination of the indigenous - oh yes the Maori may get along with the settlers, but I'm pretty certain we all have a fairly good idea of what would have happened to them if they had rebelled in the same way the native Americans had and to the same degree.
Australia - ex penal colony and again - domination of the indigenous people.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying other countries are perfect and without fault. My point being is that I am all for equal opportunities - I keep my distance from most people because I don't like people very much and I generally think at some point they're going to stab you in the back. Countries are just places where there are lots and lots of people - so you get an extension of that.
There is no "good" person or "good" country - we're all part of a quagmire of excrement.
I think it's more China's use of terminology and use of the English language - after all they're not native English speakers and if you look a lot of their other press releases (or whatever you call them), they're full of the same tone/rhetoric.
Trust me - any country/company who went through something like this would do the same thing - it's just they wouldn't publically say it. The way China engages and uses the press doesn't help progress their side of the argument.
I've had a long running opinion that essentially the West doesn't really get along with any country it first hasn't beaten in a war of some sort.
I can't help but think the response to these hacking attempts would be very different if the culprit was China or Iran etc ...
Given the ability for intelligence agencies to construct a narrative, I wonder why they don't just blame an Axis of Evil (TM) - consisting of the triumvirate of Russia, China and Iran. Historically we all know humans do their finest work when they have a well defined scapegoat.
If you feel strongly enough about a subject you should proceed regardless of cost - if cost is a factor then you don't feel strongly enough about a subject to invoke real change.
As an example there was a point where the cost of new paper was lower than the cost of recycled paper, so recycling paper didn't make any sense for that amount of time. Regardless of whether it made commercial sense or not, if you feel strongly enough for the environment then you should go on regardless.
Same with this tech - if Huawei is such a danger - rip all the equipment out - if it affects communication so be it - at least there will be no Chinese interference.
In fact lets send all Chinese back to China - they then will retaliate by sending expelling all British people from their country. Please let me know what other country's peoples you don't like ? Let's do the same ...
Can you see that at some point this strategy might not work very well?
“Today, the State Department is imposing visa restrictions on certain employees of Chinese technology companies that provide material support to regimes engaging in human rights abuses globally,” Secretary of State Mikel Pompeo, said.
So does that mean the manufacturer of the chain link fences in a certain camp in Cuba can also be denied/detained if they tried t go into China, or would the US be up in arms at the detention of some of their country people?
I read this article :
with interest. If Huawei poses an actual & realised threat to Western national security as implied - i.e. ""There's no question that information from Huawei routers has ultimately ended up in hands that would appear to be the state," Mr Schmidt added.", then why not throw the gauntlet down and publish the data?
Actual proof of an actual event would have a much greater effect to the adoption of Huawei technology than whispers and inference of wrongdoing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020