The US-China Battle Over the Internet Goes Under the Sea (wired.com) 72
Last week, Washington strongly objected to a new project from Facebook and Google. It's too risky and offers "unprecedented opportunities" for Chinese government espionage, the Justice Department declared. The project, however, wasn't about online speech or contact tracing, but concerned an issue that would seem far less politically charged: building an undersea internet cable from the United States to Hong Kong. From a report: On June 17, Team Telecom -- the executive branch group charged with reviewing foreign telecoms for security risks (and recently in the news for escalating and apparently insufficient inspections) -- recommended the Federal Communications Commission stop the Hong Kong connection. It may seem odd for American officials to fret over undersea cable networks; rarely does your chosen crime show's protagonist kick a door in because someone is laying telecommunications fiber.
But geopolitical influence-projection on the internet isn't just about hacking other countries' intelligence databases. While not nearly as flashy, the development and maintenance of undersea cables, the landing points anchoring them above ground, and other physical internet infrastructure are a growing arm of cyber statecraft and source of security risk. This cable is just one element in a broader geopolitical contest. Facebook and Google joined the project, dubbed the Pacific Light Cable Network, back in 2016. Teaming up with New Jersey-based telecom TE SubCom and Pacific Light Data Communication Company, a Hong Kong subsidiary of the Chinese firm Dr. Peng Telecom & Media Group, the US giants jumped on a project already months underway: building a massive undersea internet cable -- the submarine-depth metal tubes hauling internet traffic from one land mass to another -- connecting the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Philippines.
To the US government, the Taiwan and Philippines part was up to scratch. Undersea cables have visible benefits, such as bolstering digital connections between regions and facilitating all forms of communication that follow. And for this 8,000-mile-long fiber-optic snake, connecting dispersed areas of the world was exactly the point. The stakeholders wrote as much in a December 2017 filing to the US government, noting this would be the first undersea cable moving internet traffic directly between Hong Kong and the United States, at speeds of 120 terabytes per second. But the government had security worries about the Chinese-owned Hong Kong subsidiary behind the effort, as well as the proposed line to Hong Kong itself. Google, Facebook, and their partners had already laid thousands of miles of cable and spent millions of dollars last August when word broke of the Justice Department's opposition to the project. Officials thought Beijing could physically access the cable for espionage -- in this case by capturing internet traffic.
But geopolitical influence-projection on the internet isn't just about hacking other countries' intelligence databases. While not nearly as flashy, the development and maintenance of undersea cables, the landing points anchoring them above ground, and other physical internet infrastructure are a growing arm of cyber statecraft and source of security risk. This cable is just one element in a broader geopolitical contest. Facebook and Google joined the project, dubbed the Pacific Light Cable Network, back in 2016. Teaming up with New Jersey-based telecom TE SubCom and Pacific Light Data Communication Company, a Hong Kong subsidiary of the Chinese firm Dr. Peng Telecom & Media Group, the US giants jumped on a project already months underway: building a massive undersea internet cable -- the submarine-depth metal tubes hauling internet traffic from one land mass to another -- connecting the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Philippines.
To the US government, the Taiwan and Philippines part was up to scratch. Undersea cables have visible benefits, such as bolstering digital connections between regions and facilitating all forms of communication that follow. And for this 8,000-mile-long fiber-optic snake, connecting dispersed areas of the world was exactly the point. The stakeholders wrote as much in a December 2017 filing to the US government, noting this would be the first undersea cable moving internet traffic directly between Hong Kong and the United States, at speeds of 120 terabytes per second. But the government had security worries about the Chinese-owned Hong Kong subsidiary behind the effort, as well as the proposed line to Hong Kong itself. Google, Facebook, and their partners had already laid thousands of miles of cable and spent millions of dollars last August when word broke of the Justice Department's opposition to the project. Officials thought Beijing could physically access the cable for espionage -- in this case by capturing internet traffic.
So (Score:4, Insightful)
So, Room 641A?
Re: (Score:1)
Come on now! When our government does it, we're protecting the world for freedom! When their government does it, it's communist hoards coming to rape your grandma.
Re: (Score:1)
that IS unprecedented, next thing you know they got access to radio waves =lol , or maybe
i think it states clearly "The US-China Battle" , i dont see why i should be part of it
Do as we say, but not as we do (Score:5, Informative)
"Officials thought Beijing could physically access the cable for espionage -- in this case by capturing internet traffic."
Like the NSA did for years: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0... [nytimes.com]
and others do across the world: https://www.theatlantic.com/in... [theatlantic.com]
Hypocrites.
Re: Do as we say, but not as we do (Score:2)
Sheesh. This isn't a school play ground. This is big boy pants wearing international affairs and power politics.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were then the White House would have shut the fuck up and just tapped the line the same way they do all the others (we've been doing it since the 1970s). This is just grandstanding for the election.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case Hong Kong is a part of China. So an indirect cable to Hong Kong via China, is more secure than a cable going direct to Hong Kong which is a part of China. I think the USA is setting up the Hong Kong to be a dead King Kong, ding dong. Hong Kong is screwed no longer the gateway to China, there is no need for the USA and UK to pile on and make it even worse. Once other Cities in mainland China and especially Hainan started catching up and overtaking Hong Kong it was over for Hong Kong, way over de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's idiots in our goverment vs. them. You're typing on your pile of chinese electronics to get here ya know....
NSA is the biggest threat and offender anyway. As Pogo cartoon character said "we has met the enemy and they is us."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
absolutely more a threat to our freedom and liberty than any foreign government. pry your head out of your ass. damn you are a willfully ignorant fool.
Re: (Score:2)
We definitely need to keep our government under control (yeah... sigh) for our freedoms and liberties but one of the primary functions of federal government is to keep us safe from foreign countries, such as China. As bad as our systems are, theirs seem even more draconian.
Maybe it's all propaganda to make me feel that way. Maybe the Chinese don't have reeducation camps for dissidents and don't jail Muslims for being Muslim. I see a lot of that in the news but it could be all a smear on China.
Maybe in China
Re: (Score:3)
Spying has been a Thing since before there was such a concept as 'nations'. They do it to us, we do it to them, and allies even do it to their allies; is it any more morally or ethically bad than, say, jaywalking or pickpocketing at this point? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:3)
If you really want to be paranoid about it, you could claim the U.S. is issuing the warning because it feels its capability to hack undersea cables is about the same as or worse than China's
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we're allowed meaningful encryption I don't care who hacks the cables.
This warning only makes sense if the feds get what they want, legally mandated backdoors into all of our crypto systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You might ask the guys in Guantanamo about that last claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, most of them were detained on the word of anonymous paid informers, that's been the case since the beginning. People have been held AND TORTURED for years **after** the military had already realized that they were nobodies who had no useful information, including a 14 year old kid.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an American? /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you couldn't read in 2008 yet? Come back when you get out of high school.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you do just that, you get a bunch of opinion pieces, and nothing that supports the claim.
Without even finding your links for you I can already figure out from the context the exact lie; military actions were conducted, in a war zone, based on information from informants, and during these combat patrols alleged combatants were captured.
That's completely different than the claim, "most of them were detained on the word of anonymous paid informers." Instead, they were detained on the judgement of US infantr
Re: (Score:2)
the final spin about saving "markets full of civilians" ... priceless!!
Re: (Score:2)
Get the bleep out of there, and be machine gunned as you leave the building. Sounds like a great plan.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, you've been under a rock since 2002?
start here, it's a long read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"ok and" there is the citation you asked for. (that a portion of those were innocent, detained without proper evidence, unjustly treated, tortured, and kept in detention even after found free of any valid charge)
if you have chosen to keep living in denial then there is nothing more i can do for you. have a good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were arrested and charged with violent actions.
if you had actually read the link you'd knew many of them haven't been charged at all, with anything, to this day. which is the whole point. fundamental rights voided simply because someone decided they are the enemy, or could be a source of information about the enemy, while denying all accountability. they didn't even wait for them to voice any opinion. if that doesn't sound like dark totalitarian state practice to you then i don't know what would.
let me guess: anything from china, or for that matter anyt
Re:Do as we say, but not as we do (Score:4, Informative)
People detained by US forces on the word of anonymous paid informants are sent to local detention facilities operated by regional allies in the area.
The people in Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield, and were not wearing military uniforms necessary for prisoner of war status. Some of them were civilians who were mistakenly captured, but for various reasons it was unsafe to send them to their former homes; Congress prevented them from being allowed into the US; and it took years to find safe countries willing to take them.
Most detainees were illegal combatants.
Yes, detainees were tortured. Including the civilians, even after the military had determined they were unlikely to have been combatants. Horrible stuff. But if you're not honest or knowledgeable about the facts, how are you helping the fight against torture by raising the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Unsafe to send them to their homes, so it's better to maintain them in solitary confinement for years and torture them for information that you know they don't have, then dump them in a country where they have no family or other support structure? The conservative mind is an eternal source of amazement for me. I really don't understand the thought process that makes that seem reasonable.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as I know, we don't arrest people for speaking out against the Government. Nor send them to concentration camps for their religious beliefs.
How about you let Snowden and the other leakers know all is forgiven...
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because we don't listen to you [slashdot.org]. But you're hoping for it to be true deep in your heart, aren't you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'll take advantage of your claim that I can't be arrested (HAH! As if!) and convicted (you can beat the rap, but not the ride) for speaking out against the Government, and assume that it extends to speaking out against your nonsense too.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are knowledgable hypocrites. I'm not saying I support what they are doing, but they probably know better than anyone what can be done and are potentially guarding against it happening to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you have the government confused with your parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Does last-mile or first-mile make a difference? (Score:2)
What is the difference between spying at the Hong Kong terminal and spying at the last mile or any/every data center in-between? This sounds more like some sort of petty posturing against China. China has access to Chinese data regardless of where they tap in.
Re: (Score:2)
Underwater? (Score:1)
If a big org wants to snoop the 'net, is using sneaky submarines the best way to go about it? It seems to me there would be easier and stealthier penetration points on land.
Re: (Score:2)
The ends of the cables are not submarine.
One goes in the NSA box, the other goes in the CCP box.
Re: (Score:3)
That was the exact point of the post you replied to. It's easier to just tap in on land when you control one of the ends. China controls the end in Hong Kong, as well as all of the other connections between China and the rest of the world. So what's the point of worrying about the cable? Of course it's going to be tapped.
Physical vs Virtual Access (Score:3)
Yes, physical access to the cable (terminal) makes certain types of eavesdropping easier. So should we worry about the US end? And why aren't we doing end-to-end encryption anyway? Even https?
The Chinese are very proficient at virtual access anyway. Ever hear of BGP hacks, among other things? Those don't depend on having a cable terminal in their territory (which Hong Kong is).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, great call. Exactly the same. You are correct.
If you worried about the US government having access to your communication system, do not create an endpoint for an undersea communication cable in the US. Doing so would give the US access. Only site a cable there if your government is on friendly enough terms with the US government that wouldn't perceive any danger or risk in creating a US endpoint for your network.
The US does see a risk in having an endpoint in Hong Kong, because we're not on friendly
Re: (Score:2)
WW3
No, asshole, we CAN'T and WON'T. Go nuke yourself if you're in such a hurry to die. Go find a Russian FSB agent and ask them for some polonium in your coffee, that'll give you the total 'WW3 experience' all just for you.
Duuuuuuh.... (Score:2)
Google, Facebook, and their partners had already laid thousands of miles of cable and spent millions of dollars last August when word broke of the Justice Department's opposition to the project.
Thousands of miles and millions of dollars and only then does the Trump administration find fault with the project because nobody there is capable of sitting through an intelligence briefing without zoning out pulling their lip down with their finger and rolling their eyes back out of boredom. That must be annoying enough to drive the people financing and planning that project to chair throwing.
Re: Duuuuuuh.... (Score:2)
I'm confused, did China seize control of the Hong Kong justice system in 2017 and promise to start prosecuting Hong Kong citizens in mainland courts? No? Not until within the last month? Then fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the Sea!` (Score:2)
Damn, there a Little Mermaid joke in there somewhere, but I can't quite see it.
If the Senate has their way none of this'll matter (Score:2)
Funny in a way (Score:2)
Let them spy. (Score:2)
If you have anything worth intercepting transmitted without good encryption,you are doing intelligence wrong.
You Posted An Article from the Atlantic Council?? (Score:2)
Where's the standard lack of oversight? (Score:2)
I guess with a corporate partner like Dr. Peng Telecom (& Media Group), it's gotta be good.
Only 30 more weeks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But keep on fighting the last war if that's what floats your boat.
That is som serious bandwith (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So, the US is NOT spying? (Score:1)