Is the US about to Split the Internet? (bbc.com) 165
The BBC reports:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he wants a "clean" internet. What he means by that is he wants to remove Chinese influence, and Chinese companies, from the internet in the U.S.
But critics believe this will bolster a worrying movement towards the breaking up of the global internet.
The so called "splinternet" is generally used when talking about China, and more recently Russia. The idea is that there's nothing inherent or pre-ordained about the internet being global. For governments that want to control what people see on the internet, it makes sense to take ownership of it. The Great Firewall of China is the best example of a nation putting up the internet equivalent of a wall around itself. You won't find a Google search engine or Facebook in China.
What people didn't expect was that the U.S. might follow China's lead.
They're reacting to U.S. president Trump's executive order to block all transactions with TikTok's parent company (starting September 20) to "address the national emergency with respect to the information and communication technology supply chain." An opinion piece in the New York Times calls the move a "foolish and dangerous edict" that's "deeply misguided and unproductive" which suggests that "the United States, like China, no longer believes in a global internet." In the BBC's article Alan Woodward, a security expert at the University of Surrey, calls the U.S. decision "shocking."
"The U.S. government has for a long time criticised other countries for controlling access to the internet⦠and now we see the Americans doing the same thing."
But critics believe this will bolster a worrying movement towards the breaking up of the global internet.
The so called "splinternet" is generally used when talking about China, and more recently Russia. The idea is that there's nothing inherent or pre-ordained about the internet being global. For governments that want to control what people see on the internet, it makes sense to take ownership of it. The Great Firewall of China is the best example of a nation putting up the internet equivalent of a wall around itself. You won't find a Google search engine or Facebook in China.
What people didn't expect was that the U.S. might follow China's lead.
They're reacting to U.S. president Trump's executive order to block all transactions with TikTok's parent company (starting September 20) to "address the national emergency with respect to the information and communication technology supply chain." An opinion piece in the New York Times calls the move a "foolish and dangerous edict" that's "deeply misguided and unproductive" which suggests that "the United States, like China, no longer believes in a global internet." In the BBC's article Alan Woodward, a security expert at the University of Surrey, calls the U.S. decision "shocking."
"The U.S. government has for a long time criticised other countries for controlling access to the internet⦠and now we see the Americans doing the same thing."
To a certain extent (Score:5, Interesting)
This has already been happening for years.
What's the first thing you do when you want to put something on the internet? Put it behind a firewall and geo-block/ip-block China, Russia, and Brazil.
This decision will absolutely impact mega corps, but everyone else is going to be like... "eh..."
Free trade versus free Internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
This has already been happening for years.
What's the first thing you do when you want to put something on the internet? Put it behind a firewall and geo-block/ip-block China, Russia, and Brazil.
This decision will absolutely impact mega corps, but everyone else is going to be like... "eh..."
What a surprise? A provocative and thoughtful FP modded fairly? Or are the trolls about to arrive with a herd of sock puppets with anti-mods? [Now I'm wondering if the moderation abuse games could somehow be played the other way, to prevent earned favorable moderation?]
My main response is that I think "free" is confusing everyone one again. Yet to meet anyone who can even figure out my "freedom" sig, even in the Slashdot-limited version. I think this is a largely a problem with the English language, where too many senses are overloaded onto the word "free". The relevant sense of the adjective is strongly controlled by the associated noun, but even then there is confusion. A recent discussion brought "free software" into the related Tik Tok topic, but "free software" carries two primary senses of "free" different from "free trade" and "free Internet". [In Japanese many of these senses require distinct words. But there's also a directly imported English word to screw things up...]
The "free Internet" and "free speech" topics are really messy, so I'm going to focus on the easier "free trade" side. Easier because the advocates are lying so obviously. However the "universal" Internet (of freedom and openness and all that jazz) is frequently linked to free trade.
Free trade is an easy target for analysis because the advocates are usually insincere, wrong, or worse. Most free trade advocates really think free trade is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" game. They think their own team is winning. If they said that part out loud, they would use countries. "Heads the US wins, tails China loses" in the example of this story. They only advocate free trade when they think their own side is winning.
I don't think Trump understands the game that deeply, but some of his puppeteers think the Internet is a game where we can take our ball and go home and China will be screwed. China is not playing that game, but is busily making more balls where we can't see what is going on. [If there were any actual and physical balls involved, then this would be the place for a joke about Uighur "reeducation" and labor "summer" camps. (Hey! Is it still racist when gawd Mao did it to atheist communism-worshipping Han Chinese first?)]
If the US intelligence reports are accurate about China seeing Trump's instability and insanity as "too annoying", then it's "Game Over". Why wouldn't China upset the chessboard? Make an example of Trump by picking the best response time to maximize the political damage to Trump. The stock market has been volatile this year? Maybe you ain't seen nothing yet. Xi can bottom out the stock market just before the election. Think you can convince me Xi can't do it? Good luck.
Re: Free trade versus free Internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure Xi can bottom out the stock market - in fact it could be argued that China already did that earlier this year when they knowingly let the Coronavirus traverse the globe during those precious days when they knew it was highly infectious but yet prevented this fact from being known.
The reason they don't is that they still need people to buy their "stuff". They apparently know about those consequences. But not the consequences of the countless human rights abuses because of the rampant censorship they are
Re: (Score:2)
Sure Xi can bottom out the stock market - in fact it could be argued that China already did that earlier this year when they knowingly let the Coronavirus traverse the globe during those precious days when they knew it was highly infectious but yet prevented this fact from being known.
Gee, and the times I said basically this, pointing out the military advantages to such an action, I was called crazy. Yet here is someone else with basically the same idea. Who'd've thunk it?
Re: Free trade versus free Internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
And censor what is being said about Chinese interests including ongoing horrible humans rights abuse in China.
I have my doubt that this has any relevance at all. The west has known about Chinese abuses for decades. We don't care. We've proven we don't care. Oooh the iPhone is assembled by 10 year old, quick remove that one 10 year old from the assembly line to show how much we care!
Re: (Score:2)
If we have to recreate our own networks, where free speech is allowed unhindered, I'm fine with that.
You haven't thought this through all the way.
How can there be Free Speech unhindered without China being able to do what they want on that Network? How can you keep them out? The Internet is about as perfect as it can be right now. Any restrictions placed on it restrict Free Speech.
I suspect that you have the idea that it is possible to create Free Speech by restricting Free Speech... yeah, you should think this through.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll never be able to actually block China though. Half the US buys its cheap shit from China (probably more like 90%, but I have no hard data), imagine what would happen if you told most of the population they can't buy a $3 LED remote caddy with free shipping included any more?
Even if you discount the public, industry needs its cheap Chinese shit as well. Needed to get a soft-start controller for a lathe recently. Cost from the US, $500. Cost from Aliexpress, $20. And if we'd got the $500 one we'd
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The biggest difference here is that we are going to have to take control away from the US if it starts to abuse it. Until now we have tolerated the US having control of the root DNS and other key infrastructure because it has behaved itself.
If it ever starts to abuse that responsibility then DNS will split, maybe IP blocks will be duplicated, routing will get screwed up etc. I.e. a proper split, not just a country level firewall, multiple incompatible networks.
It's called facebook basics (Score:2)
The walled garden of facebook, sort of like a private shooting range of bewildered herds of doe-eyed consumers that rich companies can buy for safaris, is your clean internet. It exists. come on in.
Re: To a certain extent (Score:2)
Nothing of value to Europe, North or South America will be lost if we de-peer them. Mega corporations with continued ties to China or Russia will just have to make do with paying for dedicated non-routable circuits using the existing transit that lets those two peer with the world today.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, after the ISOC corruption with .org and the sustained leadership of Mr. Sullivan I believe our ideals of a "global internet" only fuel a corrupt elite.
American Global Internet is colonial hypocrisy as Trump shows.
Re: (Score:2)
No more so that the person he responded to. Your whine detector has a bias.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tik Tok is not a threat guys, everyone can go home. Anonymous Coward saved us.
Re: (Score:3)
The headline is nonsense. Nothing in Pompeo's remarks were about splitting the internet, or even doing anything at a network level. Not even the "critics" accusations in the article said anything about walling off parts of the internet.
Not even sure the author of the article even knows what "The Internet" is...
Re:To a certain extent (Score:5, Informative)
I still don't understand how China having access to a billion videos of teenage girls doing the Laffy Taffy dance is a threat to national security. To me it seems like more of Trump doing his anti-China thing.
Apparently, some people on TikTok (then Twitter, ...) gamed the ticket numbers at his Tulsa rally by reserving about a million tickets, never intending to actually attend (and didn't attend). Trump thought he had all those people coming (so much so, they built a stage outside) only to show up to an almost empty stadium and parking lot. From Is This The Real Reason Why Trump Wants To Ban TikTok? [forbes.com]
“I think his people have told him enough that ‘Yeah, it did have an effect on your Tulsa rally,’” says Mary Jo Laupp, 51, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, who was an unlikely chief organizer of the movement on TikTok against Trump’s rally. “I think that these Gen Zers made him look bad.”
Or as Trevor Slack, a 26-year-old in Los Angeles who reserved six tickets to the event and did not attend, puts it: “Seems like he got pretty butt-hurt.”
Another good write-up is TikTok Teens and K-Pop Stans Say They Sank Trump Rally [nytimes.com]
Re:To a certain extent (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but they could have just have easily done that using an American company like Facebook.
(...and will do if he bans TikTok)
Re:To a certain extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. That it was TikTok, or even a Chinese company is completely incidental— what he's doing is showing that he has the power to unilaterally hurt companies that don't actively kowtow to his interests.
This is an autocratic power grab that's about as transparent as they come. That nobody but his most fanatical, braindead followers believe the flimsy national security premise is a feature, not a bug. The message is loud and clear, but he's got just enough hand-wavy justification to implement it and do the damage, even if it doesn't end up surviving challenges in the long run. TikTok's American market will collapse— perhaps permanently given the trend-obsession and attention span of the young target demographic — and Trump will have won.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is kidding who, this is a straight up economic thing. The USA is content with US digital corporations cheating other countries of the taxes that should be paid, they are happy to use US products to hack other countries security and they are happy to force US products on those companies under threat of regime change. They know full well, the government of China is backing a major play of FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE to take on US corporations and gut their revenue and hence these ant-competitive tactics an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't think that deeply. He's just banning something made in China during an election campaign because he knows it will get him votes.
Constantly saying "China" on TV also distracts people's attention from the way he's handling coronavirus.
Re:To a certain extent (Score:4, Informative)
It is a US election thing. By pretending to be hard on China, especially in a loose legally questionable way will make Trump appear to be the anti-China candidate and everybody else trying to stop him.. And it has to be pretty weak so that everybody factual will come out against him..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To a certain extent (Score:5, Insightful)
still don't understand how China having access to a billion videos of teenage girls doing the Laffy Taffy dance is a threat to national security.
You've got the wrong end of that. The worry is about people with access to US secrets watching videos of teenage girls doing the Laffy Taffy dance.
TikTok is malware that shows videos. If you remember "WeatherBug", the spyware that showed the current weather, and millions voluntarily infected their PCs with it, this is much the same. The underlying problem is a totalitarian government so used to spying on everyone in every possible way, that they can't stop putting spyware in things even when it hurts them internationally.
But TikTok as a social media platform is more worrying because why would you want your social media censored by the Chinese government is you're not in China? It's not OK that Reddit accepts $150 M from the Chinese government. We don't need that kind of censorship here. It's not OK that Discord accepts an undisclosed amount of millions from the Chinese government. We don't need that kind of censorship here. It's not OK that YouTube was deleting videos and comments with phrases attacking the Chinese government (apparantly with their own management knowing about it). We don't need that kind of censorship here.
The Chinese government spying and censorship apparatus is so pervasive that it's a real problem here. This must stop.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is malware that shows videos
The same can be said about literally every app that shows videos from an online service. The only question is who benefits from said malware.
Re: To a certain extent (Score:3)
Oh well. (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet was fun while it lasted. Guess we'll go back to stupid tribal wars thanks to nationalist fools.
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange how certain high-ranking US officials are also the first to complain when other powerful organisations, such as the EU, attempt to reign in US companies that are doing much the same thing in terms of harvesting data without good security and privacy controls, attempting to control critical infrastructure, being subject to secret interventions by their host government that may compromise the security of their customers, etc.
How many days is it since the EU-US Privacy Shield was struck down in the European courts because it didn't provide adequate safeguards that were up to European standards? And that was the second time such an umbrella data sharing protocol between the EU and US was struck down by the courts, with an almost identical story each time.
Re: (Score:3)
The internet was fun while it lasted.
We'll still have the internet.
Here is the thing; right now, China has a separate intranet. Effectively with one-way internet gateways.
If we say that places that are shut off to our internet (by technology or by policy) will have our internet shut off to them also, we didn't lose anything. We only reduced parasitic access.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is 100% based on "parasitic access". That and paywalls.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
-So many push for everyone to be the same, but that sounds boring.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to block an entire country because of the actions of a few.
No, they want to block countries because of the action of their governments.
What is stupid is even if western nations each build their own internets, China and RUssia has TONS of spies in each nation who will simply connect and do their jobs. WHy? Because governments REFUSE to secure the net, and I doubt that they would secure any future net.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is stupid is even if western nations each build their own internets, China and RUssia has TONS of spies in each nation who will simply connect and do their jobs.
You under-thought this, by far.
Spies have to use tiny little pipes. Low bandwidth. Covert-sized. That's a huge win on this shit. You see winning as stupid.
In the case of China, obviously we need to do a better job at protecting our network infrastructure.
In the case of Russia, they're moving to splinter on their own, we only need to follow their lead and offer reciprocal measures.
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Insightful)
And so does your video chat with your family overseas. At that rate, it won't take long before we're tired of "winning"....
With the exception of friendly competition (e.g. sports), winning is stupid. The real world isn't a competition. It's 7.6 billion people just trying to survive and make their lives better in any way that they can. Every bit of energy spent on beating others down, rather than improving your life or the lives of others, is fundamentally misspent effort.
In the case of China, obviously we need to do a better job at protecting our network infrastructure.
Nope. If you trust the security of data flowing across your network infrastructure, you've already failed. This is what encryption is for. If you do networking correctly, then it shouldn't matter if network switches have back doors; any data it sniffs should be useless; the worst they should be able to do is make the infrastructure fail prematurely. And I think it's safe to say that nobody is too worried about the hardware failing; if they did, they wouldn't be buying cut-rate hardware in the first place.
In the case of Russia, they're moving to splinter on their own, we only need to follow their lead and offer reciprocal measures.
China already splintered on their own, too. That doesn't mean we have to follow the lead of all the authoritarian regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
That reasoning is based on the false supposition that economics is a zero-sum game. It is not zero-sum. The more work you put into producing things, the more
Re: (Score:2)
You're subtly misunderstanding what I was trying to convey. What you're describing falls pretty clearly under "energy spent making youself or the lives of others better". What I was talking about was countries spying on other countries, mass trolling on the Internet to try
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of insane thinking here today. This is the most recent:
The real world isn't a competition. It's 7.6 billion people just trying to survive and make their lives better in any way that they can.
Um... you say it is not a competition and then go on to demonstrate that it IS a competition.
You arrive at that conclusion through this:
Every bit of energy spent on beating others down, rather than improving your life or the lives of others, is fundamentally misspent effort.
In order to protect your fields/livestock/resources, sometimes you absolutely do need to "beat others down". Stronger people are more of a threat than weaker people, so beating people down IS useful. When it becomes "not so useful" is when the beating down is the focus and is used on non-threats or weak threats; a
Re: (Score:2)
Every bit of energy spent on beating others down, rather than improving your life or the lives of others, is fundamentally misspent effort.
In order to protect your fields/livestock/resources, sometimes you absolutely do need to "beat others down". Stronger people are more of a threat than weaker people, so beating people down IS useful. When it becomes "not so useful" is when the beating down is the focus and is used on non-threats or weak threats; although even beating down weak threats can be useful.
I don't agree with the "stronger people are more of a threat" part. Weaker players sometimes get lucky and cause huge amounts of damage. Case in point, 9/11. And ironically, the main reason that 9/11 happened, ultimately, is because the U.S. built up some really bad regimes in an effort to beat down the U.S.S.R. back in the 1970s, in an area of the world that we basically had no good reason to mess with. This makes 9/11 a prime example of why beating down other countries without provocation is ultimatel
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? Most people don't video chat overseas. Most people use telephones and social media.
"Oh no, a minor inconvenience" Few people will rate your minor inconvenience as important compared to national security.
Re: (Score:2)
Spies have to use tiny little pipes. Low bandwidth. Covert-sized. That's a huge win on this shit.
That's a so-utterly-trivial-as-to be-completely-irrelevant "win". Spies can very easily operation with low-bandwidth pipes. On the rare occasion they need to move large amounts of data they can use other mechanisms, because spies have lots of money. For that matter, spies from significant countries have their own communications satellites, so they have all the bandwidth they need.
You under-thought this, by far.
Uh...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bound to happen (Score:3)
Not a fan of this idea.. but always thought it was bound to happen. Where we "saved" the Internet from commercial entities doing this by passing net-neutrality laws, there's nothing that protects it from governments.
What's the future? Meshing Wi-Fi routers?
Re: (Score:2)
For the technically skilled and determined, sure. And covert encrypted overlay networks. Content addressible distributed storage. Stenographic traffic. Lots of ways... but how many are accessible to the masses who are just curious to see the international news or entertainment? Would they want to go through weeks of studying, or would they just find it easier to go back to state-approved media?
Bypassing centralized control? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the future? Meshing Wi-Fi routers?
I wish had a favorable mod point to give you.
I also wish local solutions such as Wi-Fi meshes could happen. My first comments advocating this kind of decentralized approach were back in the '80s... I still think it makes economic sense, especially considering the bias towards popular content that can be cached locally, but I've apparently gotten older and wiser and less optimistic about "economic sense". I think the main reason it can't happen is because big governments and big companies want control over our data. From that perspective, China's main sin is saying the quiet part out loud.
I still think the solution approach is smaller companies and smaller governments with more choice and freedom, but I don't see any continuous way to get there from here. Some of the steps are obvious, but corporate cancers insist on getting bigger. (I also foresee a bleak endgame. Infinite growth is not sustainable or even possible. If peaceful evolutionary change is blocked too long, then... Once you go discontinuous, you can't predict where you'll land.)
Re:Bypassing centralized control? (Score:5, Interesting)
It did, for a time. Back in the 80s and 90s there was a world-spanning decentralised network set up by ham radio operators. The bandwidth was tiny by today's standards - high speed local links were 1200bps, and the long-range, trans-continential were 300bps. But it existed - hams had bulletin boards, real-time chat and email systems running on it.
It almost entirely died off when the internet and mobile phones came along. It wouldn't be easy to build today, as well - the power levels you need for long-range radio are not available without licensing, and the low-volume production makes it pricy too.
Re: (Score:2)
My vision was basically about resource swapping. Some people would participate and earn reputation by providing short-range resources such as storage or local relays, while other people might be providing gateways to the long-range Internet. You'd get more reputation by focusing on scarce resources, with your neighbors attesting to your contributions... Now I'm studying Blockchain and wondering if it could be adapted to such purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people have tried. The problem is always the same: Range and demand. For that to work, you need to have people within range - and range is not very long, for unlicensed radio - who are also running the same platform. But who is going to do that, when they have the existing internet available? The standard internet is cheap, reliable, and high-performance. There's no way any experimental decentralised mesh system can compete with that in the cities, and outside of the cities where there may be no in
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for my lateness, which quickly moots most discussions on Slashdot. Been busy, but this is basically the ACK and concurrence. However I don't see what the 802.11a has to do with it, and I'm not familiar with h (or have forgotten it).
Re: (Score:2)
802.11ah, not a. It's a little-known standard in the 802.11 wireless lan family that focuses on range, at the expense of throughput. It's fully compatible with standard IP networking, looks just like any other wireless network - except that you get sub-megabit throughput, and multi-kilometer range. I would like to use it, but it never achieved commercial success so it's just about impossible to get hold of actual hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds nice from a philosophic perspective, but the intro didn't address my two main concerns: (1) It needs an incentive structure that can encourage sufficient participation, and (2) Most existing Wi-Fi hardware is hard to mesh, basically working as hubs rather than bridges.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the future? Meshing Wi-Fi routers?
No. The future is having to connect to a different DNS network for addresses outside your side of the "1st World"/"2nd World" boundaries.
And perhaps having separate IP systems, and needing to specify a gateway to those addresses on your network. And having to add entries to a hosts file if you're trying to connect to systems with conflicting numbers, or else toggle which network you're using at the time.
Personally, I rarely want to visit .ru or .cn sites anyway so I wouldn't notice.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the future? Meshing Wi-Fi routers?
I've always liked that idea, but it breaks down because traffic isn't random, people want to go to the same places, so you need thicker pipes. If you have a wifi mesh network, it really sucks if your live next to a Google data center, because all traffic will want to go through your node.
Re: (Score:2)
You can partially mitigate that with content-addressible storage and aggressive caching. We don't do that right now because bandwidth is cheap enough to waste without much concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is a load of false BS. WE saved IT!
ICANN (Score:3, Interesting)
So, explain to me why giving up US control of ICANN was a good idea?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To prevent this bullshit from happening?
Re:ICANN (Score:5, Funny)
So, explain to me why giving up US control of ICANN was a good idea?
The trick is, we can make a new one whenever we want, arbitrarily. It is only a scarce resource because it is the resource that Americans use. If we switch, the value switches automatically.
Re: ICANN (Score:3, Informative)
It is not a good idea, but is done to placate the nations that did not build the basis of the internet, and don't like someone holding the keys to the very thing the person built.
I was at ICANN when it was still effectively run by USC, and they were trying to make lots of groups happy. Sadly at the time the voices most listened to were large corporations and the entertainment industry. That first shift in focus kept leading us away from the ideals of Jon postel. (Capitalization intentionally not used be
Re: (Score:2)
So, explain to me why giving up US control of ICANN was a good idea?
Because Strawmen are cool and we can dress them up pointlessly to derail important discussions.
Nothing new (Score:2)
I apologize for our nation (Score:3, Insightful)
book burning (Score:4, Insightful)
This looks like modern day book burning. I only hope that we have a change in power in the US sooner than later. Seems like the US is scared of China using exactly the same tactics as already used in the US. The funny thing is that the more we fight China the more we look like China, which isn't conservative or American.
Re: (Score:2)
So Pompeo worships Eris?
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like censorship, which goes directly against the constitution. How long before Pompeo's 'clean internet' looks like the Great Firewall of China? No nonsense here, just calling reality as I see it. Are you saying that censorship is okay in the US or that the Chinese don't censor?
The Trump administration is dangerous to the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He was obviously shielded all his life and never got involved in brawls.
Well, being the child of a multimillionaire will do that - doesn't matter if they're old money or a slumlord, their kids aren't going to be exposed to the same sorts of things as the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of the US voted for him, and they have a chance not to vote for him.
While splitting it is stupid, it would be smart .. (Score:2)
1) for military use. It should be open to western nations/allies only, and should have stiff security on it.
2) Utilities. Seriously, each nation should have their own separate Intranet for dealing with utilities. In NO CASE, would any business computers be allow direction on it. IOW, a Utilities HQ could not hook up to it. OTOH, a power plant, might have a 1-way connection to the HQ so that they pull the data and then
Re: (Score:3)
And, of course, to get the messages across the cables under the ocean the various networks would need to be combined somehow...let's see.........what should we call that combined network.....
You're advocating the way things were before the internet was created.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, it would accomplish the same thing. That is, by running it on Dark Fibers. The more I think about it, perhaps Medical could be ran over regular internet, just strictly vpn.
But for National Security, Military, Utilities, FAA, Trains,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By being on its own sets of fiber, the chances drop way down. And 2 of those are about national security. In fact, I would also run the FAA equipment over the Utility lines.
Tor (Score:3)
Re: Tor (Score:2)
Great Firewall of China (Score:2)
Interesting that places like China, Russia, etc. have been splitting and censoring the internet for years. To the point the slashdot has an icon for the great firewell of China. But when the US reciprocates starts blocking Chinese companies suddenly it's "splitting the internet". It's completely absurd that China blocks western companies with impunity, but the media starts crying when the US tries to level the playing field.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the point is that we are supposed to be BETTER than them, not sink to their level...
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to have free trade, not one way trade. It's a complete shame that the Chinese digital companies can sell to the US but not the other way around.
If you allow everyone into the pool. (Score:4)
Is this even possible? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's possible. That doesn't make it desirable. The internet didn't always exist. There used to be LOTS of separate networks that couldn't talk to each other.
OTOH, it would be quite expensive, and would damage the economy (which is already in a tailspin) pretty extensively.
Of course, you can't ever really go back to where you were. And a lot of people would be really pissed off if you killed Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
And a lot of people would be really pissed off if you killed Netflix.
Or pornhub.
Re: (Score:2)
Read another way (Score:4, Funny)
Read another way, the headline is "U.S. envies China's totalitarian control of the internet, wants to copy it."
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
It has ALWAYS been split (Score:4, Informative)
Similar to some other nations (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to restrict access to China, then restricting access from China is only fair.
Unbelievable (Score:2, Offtopic)
Unbelievable how many people are shilling for Chinese malware because Orange Man Bad.
Clock is ticking (Score:2)
He's got about 5 months to do it, and unless the next administration follows suit, then it's not happening. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if future admins continue the trend.
I'm sure people will reply saying, "good, he should kick China out". The thing is, China is the future, whether we like it or not. We're only going to insulate ourselves, and accomplish little to nothing. We should be finding ways to stop aspects of their belt & road initiative which is the beginning of their domination.
I don't
Giant hole in core argument. (Score:2)
China has effectively set itself up for one-way access to the internet. It can go out and do whatever it wants, but the rest of the world can't come in. This is neither fair, nor open, nor sustainable. Restricting China's access to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They implemented local ordinances here that require the hole be occupied. The reason is these empty homes were being overrun with squatters.
At least now they buy the house and then turn it over to a management company. It drives up the bidding process quite a bit.
They're just hiding money from their gov't (Score:2)
Makes me wonder where our ruling elite will hide their cash when our gov't starts stealing it.
Re: (Score:2)
America is already there for all but the wealthy.
Re:Trump and his henchmen (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly, my immediate reaction. It's not Americans doing the same thing, it's Trump. The country hasn't permanently changed its values, its just in crisis because it's let criminal stupidity get out of control.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The US didn't change its values, and Trump doesn't even know what the internet is. This is being pushed by the intelligence community, for reasons.
American values didn't change, the threat presented by Emperor Pooh is something that has changed from before he rose. The expected new leaders were moderate, but Emperor Pooh executed them all.
China wants to get rid of Trump because he's unpredictable. That's nice. But do they know that American patriotism doesn't spring forth from Trump? Do they not know that U
Re: (Score:2)
The right has been doing that for years and years. Not just tech sites, news in general, social networks, dating sites, everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An app with an installed userbase of millions will end up on devices of government workers. Think, dude.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The CCP are the Nazis of our time."
The US has kids in concentration camps and even Israel has apartheid. It's Nazis all the way down