The White House said on Tuesday it wants federal agencies to boost internet routing security on networks in the face of concerns raised by U.S. officials about China's ability to divert internet traffic.
Isn't that funny when the white house has been exposed secretly tapping every single non American (Chinese included) and American online activity, phones calls, mails, etc.
I'm not saying the Chinese should be able to do what the USA is already doing to the world but it's like seeing a thieft getting robbed by another criminal. Somehow its funny.
I don't understand why IT laypeople so often appeal to moral hypocrisy in matters of internal state interests: The basis for national security recommendations is not fairness for all human beings. Yes, if you're not a citizen, you are discriminated against. Sometimes, even if you are. That's the case for every nation. It also has limited bearing on whether a security policy is in the government's self-interest.
What is your point? Appealing to morals and pointing out hypocrisy to convey the message about someone not being trustworthy is fundamental.
Trusting US/Five eyes controlled companies with your data is a bad move. No matter if private or enterprise.
It is like people being perplexed about people complaining about some company or product. 'So choose another one?' Ye well others might wanna know about it too...
It's a non-sequitur. BGP validation was not recommended because of a moral claim. It was recommended for national readiness against an adversary. It also wouldn't be hypocritical if the USA (or China) subsequently engaged in BGP attacks. In fact, you can trust them to.
Thieves are probably more likely to want good locks on their house, it's for sure true with pentesters.
Security issues is a security issue, the justification is mostly just puffery. Even the white house statement is vague as hell with things some adversary might be able to do grasping at something to relate what is an industry-specific esoteric issue to some hypothetical tangible real world consequence.
It's like how Net Neutrality had that fake Comcast ad where you had to pay for tiers of internet to try to make sense of what really was a B2B market intervention to stop ISPs from rent-seeking tech companies. It made it relatable even if it wasn't at all what would have (and didn't happen I suppose) happened.
Comments
Isn't that funny when the white house has been exposed secretly tapping every single non American (Chinese included) and American online activity, phones calls, mails, etc.
I'm not saying the Chinese should be able to do what the USA is already doing to the world but it's like seeing a thieft getting robbed by another criminal. Somehow its funny.
I don't understand why IT laypeople so often appeal to moral hypocrisy in matters of internal state interests: The basis for national security recommendations is not fairness for all human beings. Yes, if you're not a citizen, you are discriminated against. Sometimes, even if you are. That's the case for every nation. It also has limited bearing on whether a security policy is in the government's self-interest.
What is your point? Appealing to morals and pointing out hypocrisy to convey the message about someone not being trustworthy is fundamental.
Trusting US/Five eyes controlled companies with your data is a bad move. No matter if private or enterprise.
It is like people being perplexed about people complaining about some company or product. 'So choose another one?' Ye well others might wanna know about it too...
It's a non-sequitur. BGP validation was not recommended because of a moral claim. It was recommended for national readiness against an adversary. It also wouldn't be hypocritical if the USA (or China) subsequently engaged in BGP attacks. In fact, you can trust them to.
Thieves are probably more likely to want good locks on their house, it's for sure true with pentesters.
Security issues is a security issue, the justification is mostly just puffery. Even the white house statement is vague as hell with things some adversary might be able to do grasping at something to relate what is an industry-specific esoteric issue to some hypothetical tangible real world consequence.
It's like how Net Neutrality had that fake Comcast ad where you had to pay for tiers of internet to try to make sense of what really was a B2B market intervention to stop ISPs from rent-seeking tech companies. It made it relatable even if it wasn't at all what would have (and didn't happen I suppose) happened.
Why thief? All countries do protect their citizens and government from external dangers. Why is one of them suddenly "thief"?
Do you really think that only the US has been doing international electronic espionage?
Russia (and before them the Soviets), the Chinese, the French, the Brits, and many others have been doing it for decades.
This isn’t a response from China to US revelations, it’s a continuation and escalation of a practice they’ve been doing all along.