US Tech Giants Increasingly Partner With Military-Connected Chinese Companies 100
theodp writes: The New York Times reports that analysts and officials in the American military community are increasingly examining a recent trend among U.S. tech companies of forming new partnerships with Chinese firms that have ties to the Chinese military. Critics are concerned that the growing number of such deals could inadvertently improve the fundamental technology capabilities of the Chinese military — or worse, harm United States national security. "One Chinese technology company receives crucial technical guidance from a former People's Liberation Army rear admiral," notes the Times. "Another company developed the electronics on China's first atomic bomb. A third sells technology to China's air-to-air missile research academy. Their ties to the Chinese military run deep, and they all have something else in common: Each Chinese company counts one of America's tech giants — IBM, Cisco Systems or Microsoft — as a partner." A blurring of the lines among many companies that supply military and commercial technology makes it difficult to know what cooperation might result in technology ultimately being used by China's military. "The Chinese companies are required to do the best for their government. American companies say they are only answerable to their shareholders," said James McGregor of the consulting firm Apco Worldwide. "So who is looking out for the United States?"
Multinationals have no country (Score:5, Insightful)
Multinationals like IBM and Oracle are only "American" when they are bidding on Government contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Multinationals like IBM and Oracle are only "American" when they are bidding on Government contracts.
How about multinationals with deep connections to the Chinese government and military? Funny how we only care about multinational corporations when they're "American" multinational corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
The US, home of double standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that most rich CEOs weren't in the military, Silver Spoon upper class like Donald Trump were draft dodgers, and didn't serve, sending others to die for their Right for Profit. But some did actually serve.
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed there being a double standard — that someone would object to "the same in a US company" being "held against it on the international stage". I asked you for citations — who had made such a claim and where.
Attempts to switch topic detected and accepted as a means of surrendering the position held on the earlier topic. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave a dismissive and irrelevant answer because if you are too stupid to know reality, you are too stupid to accept it were I to present a 500 page research paper with 500 proper citations. So "citations needed" is proof of the citation requestor's idiocy, not any deficiency in the original poster.
Re: (Score:2)
The US, home of double standards.
Funny how we only care about the US's double standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gather from that you must be in China because that would be the only thing that would make any sense ie if you were an American you would appreciate double standards in corporations from China as they would be feeding technology to your nation and would be making their infrastructure dependent upon your countries good will. So you should logically condemn your own countries corporations doubles standards and be cheering other countries corporations double standards (where they benefit rather than harm, t
Re: (Score:2)
I gather from that you must be in China because that would be the only thing that would make any sense ie if you were an American you would appreciate double standards in corporations from China as they would be feeding technology to your nation and would be making their infrastructure dependent upon your countries good will. So you should logically condemn your own countries corporations doubles standards and be cheering other countries corporations double standards (where they benefit rather than harm, think allies rather than ideological opposition).
Translation: poser sarcasm.
Face it the US government is pretty much a mess, with different corporate groups pulling in different directions creating a chaotic mess both internally and externally. Undermining each other efforts and the efforts of the government they each in part control because, well, pretty much nothing other than more greed now. All based upon the individuals within those corporations feeding their own ego and lusts first and pretty much basically not giving a fuck what happens after they have gorged themselves to death (along with the rest of us, of course starved more than gorged for us 99%).
I'd be more interested in such an analysis, if it took into account the powerful corporations like the US or China governments (or particularly powerful subunits like the NSA) rather than pants wetting about Walmart or Exxon.
Re: (Score:1)
C'mon.. what's a little corporate espionage between tech industry bedfellows?And hey.. nobody really spies on each other anymore anyways.. It's all just from reading too many John LeCarre books, right?.. And hey,can't let the shareholders down now, can we.. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
One time they are DIFFIDENTLY not American is when it comes time to pay taxes.
Re: Multinationals have no country (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be great if we could turn China into a ally instead of an adversary?
Indeed it would. Unfortunately it's about as likely as solving global warming by switching power generation to clean abundant fairy dust. It's always nice to wish for it though.
Re: Multinationals have no country (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately it's about as likely as solving global warming by switching power generation to clean abundant fairy dust.
Why is it unlikely? There are almost no significant disagreements between China and America. There is a dispute over some uninhabited rocks that are claimed by both China and Japan. There is also a dispute between China and the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal, which is also uninhabited. Since we have mutual defense treaties with both Japan and the Philippines, these disputes involve us. But that's it: a handful of rocks.
China has territorial disputes with India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. But none of those countries are American allies, so it isn't our problem.
Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. are also not in dispute. America recognizes them all as part of China.
China violates the rights of Chinese citizens, but that is not something that we can control, or even significantly influence. Besides, they are no worse than many other countries that are our allies.
So why is it inevitable that America and China be adversaries? I think the main reason is that Russia is not longer a big threat, and we need a boogey man to justify the MIC [wikipedia.org]. Since China has it's own MIC to appease, this mutual scare mongering works out well for everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
So why is it inevitable that America and China be adversaries? I think the main reason is that Russia is not longer a big threat, and we need a boogey man to justify the MIC
That's it. Granted, Russia is a bigger threat than is admitted. But that would mean that the US somehow failed in keeping them weak, thereby being weak itself. So it's time for a new boogeyman to to scare the children and keep the adults willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the F35 and other crap we "need" to defend the American way of life. Besides, 1.5 billion Chinese makes for a better spooky story.
The funny thing is, is that most of the Chinese nationals and former Chinese nationals that I
Re: (Score:1)
As someone with experience in China, a degree in East-Asian History, and has taught ESL to Chinese students, they are radically different in attitude, ideals, morals, etc.
Sure they like girls and are typically materialistic as many humans, yea. However they also are remarkably racist, misogynistic (Rape a girl? Her fault for being alone with you. A little on the young side? Buy off parents or screw them over more), have little respect for other humans (Chinese or not), have a near religious adherence to ult
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because the Chinese gov is in a cold war with the west, esp. America. The constant computer attacks on the west, along with the massive number of spies here, combined with China's support for dictators, pretty much ordains it. Worst of all, their military strategy is NOT defensive, but offensive. With an offense, you must use it first or lose it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. America does not recognise Taiwan as part of China. America does not subscribe to the "one-China" policy.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's it: a handful of rocks.
Don't deceive yourself, it's not about rocks, it's about natural resources and trade routes.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's it: a handful of rocks.
If you think the issue over the rocks is about rocks, you're dumb as a box of rocks.
Re: (Score:1)
So, you are advocating that we invade them and slaughter pretty much everybody and then set up a puppet government?
Re: (Score:3)
So, you are advocating that we invade them and slaughter pretty much everybody and then set up a puppet government?
Well aside from the fact that America does even this very badly, this is what America does best...
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. We don't really have any enemies in this world — only friends, whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet. Our own fault entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
When does taking campaign contributions from multi-nationals be gin to violate the foreign emoulients clause of the US constitution?
The Chinese (Score:2)
The Chinese are the ones looking out for the United States. After all they are on the most self destructive path possible right now.
"So who is looking out for the United States?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where do you think the US beta-tested its surveillance infrastructure other than early revisions of the Great Firewall via CSCO, GOOG, MSFT, and YHOO [cnn.com] back in 2000-2006?
Sounds like payback from NSA/US Government (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Complainers gonna complain (Score:3)
And when Chinese tech companies are forming partnerships with American firms that have ties to the American military, critics complain that they will get crucial technology and sneak in backdoors, which could inadvertently improve the fundamental technology capabilities of the Chinese military — or worse, harm United States national security.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of the US do not want to partner with China, we hate their government, we hate the culture their government creates.
The businesses of the US love China.
This is going to be the story for a good way forward.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of the US do not care about China. We pay so little attention to China you'd think we were talking about Zimbabwe most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, China and Zimbabwe are right next to each other, geographically. (Pretending to be an average American. How am I doing?)
Pretty close (and sadly, I'm not being sarcastic, there are people who wouldn't know one from the other.)
Re: (Score:2)
There are idiots of every country that don't know where anything is. Ever ask an Asian where a country in S. America is ? They'll be doing well to understand you're not asking them about the USA.
It's such a foreigner douchebag strawman, but unfortunately most Americans don't know well enough to defend themselves from such FUD.
I'm sorry, but I've been in several countries and I know for a fact (as far as personal anecdotes go) that geographical knowledge is far worse here in the US than abroad, once you take education into a factor. Among uneducated people, obviously ignorance is rampant.
However, once you begin breaking people down into levels of education, things become more interesting. Even among educated people, "geo-politics" illiteracy is almost like a badge of honor. And it is not a manner of knowing the fine details of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They are a Republic. It says so right in the name!
Not just any republic, the "People's Republic".
Re: (Score:2)
It belongs to the people. Not all of them, obviously. I mean, that would be like communism or something.
Military-Connected US Tech Giants... (Score:4, Informative)
Military-Connected US Tech Giants Increasingly Partner With Military-Connected Chinese Companies
There, fixed that headline for you.
Because what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from making the USA completely dependent on Chinese hardware, and giving away every single military secret or giving the Chinese the power to put in electronic backdoors in everything so as to neutralize any digital device depending on radio...
But corporations, and those who run them have no "country" other than money, and that country keeps them comfortable anywhere. They don't even care who wins the wars, as long at the profits keep rolling in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but under a war crimes tribunal the ceo's can be tried and maybe even get death.
Capitalists will bid on the contract for the rope (Score:1)
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
by:Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Anyone remember that?
Pure Capitalism has no allegiance to anything but profit
The Capitalist believes as Keynes put it "the worst of people acting for the worst of reasons will automatically do what is right..."
They never do, and they never will.
belief is that people take care of #1, so use that (Score:4, Interesting)
The belief is that people do in fact generally tend to try to take care of themselves and their families, to "be selfish". Since that isn't going to change, when making decisions about economic systems it's wise to recognize that fact and use it to your advantage. A simple example:
A successful system requires that people work.
People want to have money.
Therefore, a system in which people get money by working is more likely to be successful.
That's technically not a -capitalist- view, it's a liberty view. Strictly speaking, capitalism is something very specific and not actually that closely related. Capitalism recognizes that:
A successful economy requires investment (ships, factories, etc). This is called CAPITAL.
Capital invested may be lost, and in any event it's unavailable for other use so long as it is invested.
Therefore, whomever puts aside their own money and rather thean spending it, invests it into capital (401k) fairly should share in the rewards generated by their investment.
That's capitalism, very simple. The opposite view is that the elite class should forcefully take your money to invest in capital, take the rewards of investment themselves, then spread those out as they see fit. That's communism. Then you have the option to mix the two, whuch is called socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Land generates risk free rent without the need for any investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Land generates risk free rent without the need for any investment.
Ok, suppose you have land. What's the risk free rent on that land?
Now, suppose I dump a melting nuclear core on your land and a court finds that you should share in the clean up costs. What is the risk free rent on that land now?
Re: (Score:1)
Collateral (Score:3)
"Capital invested may be lost, and in any event it's unavailable for other use so long as it is invested."
I wish that were true. But have you heard of the word "collateral", not as in collateral damage, but as in the thing that you put in your loan application? Yes, it's possible to use the same money in more than one investment. The financial system is really a massive Ponzi scheme until the people start panicking and try to cash out.
Confusing resources vs computer entries (Score:2)
If a certain piece of real-estate is a factory, it's not also a park at the same time. If you put resources such as steel and labor into building a ship, you can't at the same time put those same resources into building a power plant.
For making such economic decisions, it is helpful to be able to measure the relative costs of different types of resources. Is it better to use up 1,000 hours of labor, or 5,000 pounds of steel? To decide, we must know how much labor is costs compared to steel
Re: (Score:1)
Since you tried to use "a simple example" to demonstrate "that fact":
A successful system requires that people work. People want to have money. Therefore, a system in which people get money by working is more likely to be successful.
Very logical and, like all logic, it rests on its propositions. I'm wondering why you proposed that people have to work, since computers and robots are overtaking human jobs at a fantastic/breathtaking/disturbing rate. You also haven't defined "successful" (or "system", but whatever). Out of charity, I'll assume that "people want to have money" even though I doubt it (for tens of thousands of years nobody wanted it). Furthermore, why assum
try it and see (Score:2)
You wonder why I said that someone has to work in order to provide all day the things you need and want? True, machines have been doing more and more of the work since roughly 1685, so 430 years. Perhaps you can form a society in which nobody works, while machines grow food, inspect it, package it, cook it, and deliver it.
Why don't you give it a try. You can buy a hundred acres in Montana, Wyoming, or parts of Texas or Arkansas for almost nothing and set up your own little society. Then see of machines
Re: (Score:1)
Second Fallacy: The idea that a CEO is worth more than 1100 manufacturing employees.
Third Fallacy: The ridiculous idea that a system of positive feedback is rewarding improvements.
Forth fallacy: The insane idea that speculation (the majority of investment is in financial instruments, also called speculation) has ANYT
1. look up "fallacy", 2. you'll need your 401k (Score:2)
I have two suggestions for you. First, you might want to look up the word "fallacy". Since you enjoy debate, it will be useful to you know what a fallacy is. (It doesn't mean "wish").
Second, in the world we actually live in, you will get old. It will come in very handy to have some money set aside, so I strongly encourage you to consider contributing to your 401k. Your company will probably match part of your contribution, which is free money. Investment: it's not just for rich guys; it's for anyone w
Re: (Score:1)
As for 'set money aside" thanks to compounding, MOST citizens lost net money from their 401(k) thanks to the 3 lost years of compounding from 2007 - 2009. In the end, a gambling table like Wall Street, with insider trading rampant, is a failure
And the IRS did in fact conclude that the majority of the rich began with inheritance.
Add in social inheritance like access to informal Capital networks and you have the G.W. Bush's of the world, who turned
Again, look up "fallacy". Doesn't mean what you th (Score:2)
> Sorry, but the fallacies I have mentioned are observed facts.
Facts can't be fallacies. Again, you might want to look up the word "fallacy". It doesn't mean what you think it does. Or maybe what you wish it does - it seems you conflate what you wish vs actual reality.
Fallacies are (generally named) patterns of invalid logic, such as circular reasoning. Wikipedia does a good job of listing most of the major fallacies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You'll recognize a few from your post, which includes
Re: (Score:1)
And the observations of economics stand.
Capitalism without socialism is farms without dams with water going to the wealthiest few.
Capitalism without Socialism is Yemen or Syria or any other failed state.
fyi Syria is socialist, over 30% government (Score:2)
Fyi regarding "capitalism without socialism is Syria", Syria is a socialist country, after being communist before. They legalized private business a few years ago, but over 30% of business is owned and run by the government, and a third of the population is on the government payroll.
Yemen's economy was crap when it was a communist satellite of the USSR, surviving only on Soviet aid. Unification of North and South Yemen caused more problems because their economic systems were quite different. After many
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously. No regulation of trade, no fraud control, pure capitalism.
Are you one of those who tells the lie that Nazism was socialism despite the fact that nothing socialist in form was enacted into policy or platform...ever?
Are you likewise one of those who says that since National Socialism was the name, China must be the People's Republic, because it says so on the label?
So, to return, the failed states all act for individual gain, ex
Free shipping! (Score:2, Funny)
The Chinese will soon have the cost of the F-35 reduced to $2.7 million (even less if ordered in quantities of 3 or more) and free shipping!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah only free shipping if you don't mind a 3 week wait. Of course they'll happily ship it by Fedex, but how much would that cost on an F35? Probably about $15 million AND it will go to the wrong address, be signed by some guy called "Dave" and sit on his front lawn for the entire week you have to spend on the phone to Fedex to get it back.
SAS motto: Who dares wins (Score:2)
Capitalist motto: Who cares who wins.
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember back in the 90s, when Loral sold US missile and space technology to the Chinese [washingtonpost.com], after spending six to seven figures on key political figures and receiving waivers.
Donors want favors, politicians want money, it's a symbiotic relationship (politicians shake down donors, donors view it as an investment/protection money) which has become more and more overt over the years. It undermines the rule of law of course, and leads to corruption, but as long as politicians keep getting re-elected and donors keep getting what they want, the system will continue.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
That is why I believe we should have term limits. I don't mean that one can only serve two terms like POTUS, I mean a person can serve one term in any given office. That should contain the corruption somewhat.
An inevitable retort, "What of a politician that is really good at his/her job?" Then they can run for a different office. If you do the math someone can serve a series of public offices, from school board to US senator, an stay in public office for 20 years. If you add in things like VPOTUS and POTUS, it's 30 years or so. Add in appointed offices like ambassadors, flag officers (generals and admirals), judges/justices, and cabinet positions then a person could be a public employee for their entire adult life.
Nobody is that good that we cannot find someone to replace them given the entire US population to draw from. Politicians, like diapers, needs to be changed often and for the same reason. We should not have senators who, once in office, only leave it feet first.
Re: (Score:1)
In California, term limits have effectively increased the influence of lobbyists. They're the only ones who know how the system works. Many of the legislators just got there (relatively speaking) and don't know all the details. The lobbyists write the laws they want and hand them over, where they get submitted as written.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why I believe we should have term limits. I don't mean that one can only serve two terms like POTUS, I mean a person can serve one term in any given office. That should contain the corruption somewhat.
It doesn't seem to work in practice. In places that have term limits, lobbyists gain more power, because the lobbyists get more and more experience at manipulating fresh, naive politicians. And once the politicians learn better, they get kicked out.
Truth (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Microsoft is not anybody's partner. (Score:1)
Each Chinese company counts one of America's tech giants — IBM, Cisco Systems or Microsoft — as a partner."
Unless you mean partners in crime. Microsoft is a full fledged spy operation. Who are they selling and who are they selling out?
This song comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JTMVOzPPtiw#t=50
Pickpocket the predictable and the available (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:2)
Capitalism knows no homeland. The Homo Economicus does not care about national security