China and Huawei's Dystopian 'New IP' Plan for 6G (justsecurity.org) 241
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 shared this analysis from Just Security:
Huawei's plans for 6G and beyond make U.S. concerns over 5G look paltry: Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls "New IP," designed to build "intrinsic security" into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet, and authorities can shut off an individual user's internet access at any time. In short, Huawei is looking to integrate China's "social credit," surveillance, and censorship regimes into the internet's architecture...
To avoid scrutiny of New IP's shortcomings, Huawei has circumvented international standards bodies where experts might challenge the technical shortcomings of the proposal. Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway...
Huawei dominance on New IP and 6G would not only create a less free, less interoperable internet, it would pave the way for authoritarian governments to gain expanded say over future changes to the internet for years to come.
To avoid scrutiny of New IP's shortcomings, Huawei has circumvented international standards bodies where experts might challenge the technical shortcomings of the proposal. Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway...
Huawei dominance on New IP and 6G would not only create a less free, less interoperable internet, it would pave the way for authoritarian governments to gain expanded say over future changes to the internet for years to come.
Huawei apparently knows the old English expression (Score:2)
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the British gov' would love to sneak this in, it's pretty obvious all secret services hate any encryption they can't break or don't have the keys for. Right now in the UK civil servants and no doubt their pork barrel appointees can spy on your internet usage without a court order if they simply 'suspect' you may be committing a fraud (or made a mistake on some form). Rather than contact you to check info, instead they'll spy on your Facebook conversations etc.
Re:Huawei apparently knows the old English express (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huawei apparently knows the old English express (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huawei apparently knows the old English express (Score:5, Informative)
Nit picking, but I think you mean CCP = Chinese Communist Party. The CCCP was the Cyrillic/ Russian acronym for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Cyrillic C = /s/, Cyrillic P = /r/)
Re: (Score:3)
They'll give everyone an IP address at birth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
One thing I've been meditating on is the considerable complexity and record keeping required in the modern age (nevermind the time sink to attend to it all).
And it seems that there will be an ever growing caste that simply cannot keep track of it all. That can't decipher the legalese of their healthcare plan or cell phone contract.
And they will be doomed to the fringes, no doubt, but there will be a tipping point where the fringe is the majority. And that will be ugly.
Too much organization and bureaucracy c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They'll give everyone an IP address at birth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For pretty much the history of mankind there have been 'things' that people want to access. And gatekeepers that mediate the access to those 'things'. And when the gatekeepers get too draconian there have been middlemen who sidestep the power of the gatekeeper.
We already have internet 'node' gatekeepers. An example of how people sidestep those entry points would be the dark web.
We already have absolute identification in many internet circumstances relating to finance -
Re: (Score:2)
It's coming. You know it is. An IP address for life, used on everything from passports to currency transactions.
This makes no sense. With cell phones, I don't even have the same IP address for an hour. The world is moving the opposite direction of what you think will happen.
They'll give everyone a mark at birth. (Score:2)
Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet, and authorities can shut off an individual user's internet access at any time.
Some already believe in a license to access the internet [slashdot.org], so the above isn't that far fetched. As long as "social credit"* gives a person a feeling of control and superiority over another they will embrace it.
*Moderating gives that feeling.
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of Right to read [gnu.org], written in 1997.
We already have a SIN (USA) / SSN (Canada). I'm not sure why we need "yet-another-insecure-number".
Been waiting for this. (Score:3, Interesting)
The next communication medium will be real name only, with verification. Anonymity will be portrayed as a dangerous anachronism from a benighted age. Your comments will be compiled into a score, and dip below that score and you will be cast out from society. After all, we trust experts, don't we? How do you have the standing to challenge them?
We all cheered when the bad people were silenced, remember? A few said by defending their rights, we were defending our own. But they were mostly ignored. And here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
We should be happy (Score:5, Interesting)
That the internet as it exists today is a distributed clusterfuck spanning most of the known universe, and wrestleable-to-the-ground by no one authority/body.
Of course China wants to make the internet "trustable". That way they know who to arrest. The US, Russia, and every other government who's snorted enough cocaine to cover the Gobi Desert in vanilla frosting wants this as well. Ditto for the Big Five tech companies who advertise themselves as the world's public square and public fountain, then arbitrarily silence people and deny them water.
The internet works today because by default it is an untrusted clusterfuck. This is a good thing. The people (IETF) who work everyday to keep the network from flying apart appear to have a good grasp on the Nash-Equilibrium for control versus anarchy. Whats ironic is that Huawi and the CCP proposing this trusted design-by-committee approach are two of the most un-trusted organizations on the planet.
With respect to trust, NEVER trust anyone with a gleam in their eyes who say they want to "improve" the internet with sweeping generalizations in advance of the fact. (Mumbles something about systemd.) Rather, design the protocol, implement it, test it, and submit a Request for Comments looking back at the work done. If its a Good Idea[tm] the network engineers will implement it after its been thoroughly vetted. That's what they do. We only have to look at the 5G mess to realize that any other approach is untenable.
So relax and make some popcorn, "New IP" will fail spectacularly. The world is just too big to cover all network Use Cases with a single "solution" (jesus, I hate that word), and too crazy to ever be trustable by default.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately politicians whether democratic or dictator don't like things they can control. At least dictatorships are honest about it however, whereas in democratic countries we get all sorts of Think Of The Children and similar BS and flannel in order to cover up the real intention which is control of access. In fact I'm surprised Covid hasn't been used as an excuse yet, it been used as a default reason for every other revocation of civil rights we've had in the last year here in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I'm surprised Covid hasn't been used as an excuse yet...
They're working on it. When pressed about Canada's horrible human rights violations, Prime Minister Trudeau said he's not going to address that - he's focused on getting Canada through Covid. How convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
From [ajc.com]
"When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic [sound familiar??] that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Isn't decoupling with China what the US asked for? /. should celebrate and fully support China building its own IP so American ISPs can decouple from it easily.
We should be happy with our utopia. (Score:2)
That the internet as it exists today is a distributed clusterfuck spanning most of the known universe, and wrestleable-to-the-ground by no one authority/body
Hmm, yes, I imagine the citizens of Myanmar, Ethiopia, India [hrw.org] dream of this uber internet that has no counterpart in the real physical world.
Formal internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That already exists for many government websites and services. Many countries put out government-issued IDs that work as smartcards which are used for authenticating with government services, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a fan of having a part of the internet where you cannot be anonymous. A formal internet. I bet it will be a lot more civilized.
The last year has shown that people are willing to act rude and like trash, even when they are not anonymous.
Collective immunity from remembering things (Score:2)
So we have all forgotten Snowden and what he had to say?
Someone is tracking you whichever way you take it.
any authoritarian government would love that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>"including the USA, dont think for a minute that the US Government is your friend, they're not"
And, yet, so many people on Slashdot continue to push for more and bigger government, especially at the Federal level to "solve all the problems." A true dichotomy.
I don't like to think of the government as an "enemy" or "friend", at least not in the USA. More a group of huge, unwieldy, inefficient, inept, and costly organizations. Necessary, but yet also with the dire need to be constrained.
But to equate t
And old George didn't even have a flip phone (Score:2)
ER Diagram : Person Assigned Number or Key (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> muck things up
I'm not gonna listen to the obvious kiddie fucker. (And bomb belt owner, if from the middle-east.)
Pure nonsense - and a copy-paste "analysis" (Score:5, Informative)
Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls "New IP," designed to build "intrinsic security" into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet, and authorities can shut off an individual user's internet access at any time
No, this is incorrect. This whole New IP thingie just propagates over the Internet via copy-paste.
I was curious, so I dug a bit deeper. This whole copy/pasted saga started from this workshop presented during the ITU meeting: https://www.itu.int/md/T17-TSA... [itu.int] - it was picked up and "analyzed" to death by scores of Internet fearmongers. I would guess that they haven't even read the original presentation.
The original presentation does have mentions of "shutoff protocol" to protect against DDoS-es, but it also calls it "distributed" and "GDPR-compliant". There's certainly nothing about it being controlled by the government.
And that's it. This one presentation is pretty much all we have, Huawei hasn't submitted anything actual since then. They did produce a couple more PDFs like this: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/f... [itu.int] that simply describes nothing concrete.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The original presentation does have mentions of "shutoff protocol" to protect against DDoS-es, but it also calls it "distributed" and "GDPR-compliant". There's certainly nothing about it being controlled by the government."
Right or wrong, good or bad, GDPR was created by government and enforced by government. In the context of China (and some other countries), most everything is controlled by the government- so anything that can be controlled, will be controlled. Perhaps not across the whole world, b
Pure nonsense - and a copy-paste "analysis"-BPG. (Score:2)
Why shut down, when one can run all the worlds traffic through their filters [arstechnica.com]?
How is this different from G or FB tracking ? (Score:2)
ITU trying to kill the internet (Score:2)
The ITU makes regular attempts to kill the internet. It always starts with saying that the Internet is too chaotic and needs to be "regulated".
Banning fast modems, charging internet by the minute, ATM and its seven layer model, and now asking individuals to register their address - the telecom industry has a long history of trying to ruin the internet. We should not give them another shot.
Re: (Score:2)
One of those is not like the other. ... WAT)
The others are also mostly made-up though.
("Banning fast modems"
I don't think they have a choice... (Score:2)
Think about it... if you're a Chinese guy running a very successful business... do you think they won't come to you and "convince" you to do their bidding?
All the people here in their comfy armchairs who never left their safe spaces, point at "Huawei", as if it was a single person, and go "OMGliterallyHitler!", should think about how much they would grovel like spineless molluscs upon the first mere thought of threat from a government as ruthless as China's... They'd be "government-sponsoned" quicker than t
Don't like a proposal? Make another one (Score:2)
While the US is busy fear-mongering over 5G, other countries have, unsurprisingly, already continued on with 6G planning (incidentally, many of the same countries that were also involved in developing 5G). The fact that each country in the early days will put forward ideas that advance its own personal interests is not surprising, and almost every country tries this. To suggest that Beijing is making some kind of end-run around standards bodies and international organizations is simply nonsense. For starter
There is fearmongering in TFS (Score:2)
"To avoid scrutiny of New IP's shortcomings, Huawei has circumvented international standards bodies where experts might challenge the technical shortcomings of the proposal. Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway..."
Since the olden times, xG (3G, 4G and 5G) high level requirementes (the what) are defined by the ITU-R and ITU-T
While the specifics (the how) are defined by Standards comitees )in the olden times, ETSI and FCC, nowadays, 3GPP).
So, going to ITU at this stage in the game (10 years before rollout of 6G) is not a nefarious move. Is just standard procedure since 3G times.
If a protocol is broken, don't use it. (Score:2)
If someone wants to build a protocol that is worse than what we have I suspect I won't be using it.
I don't like the web in particular either, it's quite broken. And don't get me started on DNS. If a replacement is going to be more centralized, it better offer some really good things otherwise I'm steering clear.
Sounds perfect (Score:2)
"Misinformation" begone! Sounds perfect for the West too.
The further upstream in the infrastructure chain we can get, the better, for making sure that only approved voices get heard.
All your bases are belong to us (Score:2)
and about IOT devices and pay per outlet fees? (Score:2)
and about IOT devices and pay per outlet fees?
who? (Score:5, Informative)
Told Ya So For all you nay sayers.
Who are these nay sayers? Is there someone that thought the CCP wasn't aiming for a total dystopian nightmare? Seriously, they have a been enslaving their own people, was there really anyone that thought something like this was somehow below them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Who are these nay sayers?..."
Mostly people who believe that Huawei wasn't in bed with CCP, and there have been plenty here.
Re:who? (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition, all of the corporations in China are "in bed with" the CCP. Just ask Jack Ma what happens if you stray out beyond the guard rails.
China can obviously propose whatever they think they can get away with inside their own borders or with client states reliant on their largesse, but I see little chance of anything of this sort being accepted globally.
yawn
Re: (Score:3)
"By definition, all of the corporations in China are "in bed with" the CCP. "
It's not that black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray there. When you're a Chinese owned company you do the will of the CCP, no questions asked. Not so much for many of the others.
Re:who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahahahahaha!
You clearly don't know anything about the Chinese financial system. There is nothing even remotely approximating the guard rails in first world countries when it comes to derailing "financial shenanigans." Their accounting and audit certifications are a complete joke, corruption is rampant, and the stock market bears more resemblance to a casino than an actual market place because the underlying financial data is THAT bad and the level of insider trading and corruption is off the charts compared to the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
1. I have no idea what you're talking about with unregulated phone apps. Red herring.
2. You have no raving idea what you're talking about. I have lived and worked in China and know the regulations well (to the extent that even matters because due to corruption, they are enforced when convenient along with unpublished regulations to stymie foreign companies when convenient).
Keep steppin.
Good question. Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are these nay sayers?
You see those people over to the side there? The ones made of straw? That’s them.
Nay sayer here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This article is a shitty hit-piece by an industry shitting itself because Huawei is years ahead on R&D.
The New IP protocol has NOTHING to do with social credit scores and DOES NOT identify an individual in any way. It just adds the kind of security that we have been adding anyway, e.g. encrypted and signed DNS lookups that are resistant to spoofing.
All that stuff we said after the Snowden leaks about rebuilding the net to facilitate trust and security, well that's what Huawei is proposing. Encrypted by
Re:Told Ya So (Score:4, Informative)
Oh look, one of Beijings shills has stayed up late to comment on the story. We're so blessed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It has NOTHING to do with social credit scores.
RIGHT UP UNTIL IT ACTUALLY DOES AND THE TWO GET BOLTED TOGETHER.
So, yes, it actually has everything to do with the POTENTIAL AND *EASE* FOR MISUSE and the human rights abuses that will probably happen because of it 'deleting' people from society because of a grudge, or speaking ill of the great leader. Remember these are the turds that are sticking muslims in concentration camps in China.
Point and click opposition deletion. Can't buy food? That's because you h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed. Let the women of Afghanistan now submit once again to their Taliban masters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed. Let the women of Afghanistan now submit once again to their Taliban masters.
America, Fuck Yeah! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
This article is a shitty hit-piece by an industry shitting itself because Huawei is years ahead on R&D.
When you say years ahead what does this mean? Who are they ahead of and what specifically are you referring to?
The New IP protocol has NOTHING to do with social credit scores and DOES NOT identify an individual in any way.
Where is the specification? What are you basing these conclusion on?
All that stuff we said after the Snowden leaks about rebuilding the net to facilitate trust and security, well that's what Huawei is proposing.
What Huawei is proposing is redundant and unnecessary.
https://www.internetsociety.or... [internetsociety.org]
Huawei isn't stupid, it knows that things like security and GDPR matter in the West and delivers products that meet those needs. That's why it's done so well with 5G, if it's gear was crap it wouldn't sell.
I completely disagree. Huawei is stupid for thinking the world is going to accept yet another incompatible IP protocol complete with variable sized addressing scheme for no useful benefit. It's 2021 and 2/3rd of the net have yet to adopt IPv
Re:Told Ya So (Score:5, Insightful)
We fundamentally do not want to go in the direction of a "secutity model" that the Chinese Communist Party plans for us.
We fundamentally do not want to go in the direction of a "secutity model" that the US government plans for us either.
How about we evaluate each proposal on its merits, rather than on innuendo, lies and xenophobia? Do you have specific technical criticisms of the New IP plan?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with all the security models always seems to come down to PKI trust issues combined with default software behavior.
If trust is PGP-style web of trust, the public gets it wrong and security is much weaker by and large. Can you imagine what web commerce would be like with self-signed certificates and self-managed trust?
If trust is centralized, then it can be required and verified and it mostly works because the public doesn't; have to think about it. The problem with centralized trust is now you
Re: (Score:2)
We fundamentally do not want to go in the direction of a "secutity model" that the US government plans for us either.
What secutity model are you talking about?
Re:Told Ya So (Score:5, Interesting)
It became inevitable ~ 2007-2008 when all major USA, European and Japanese vendors practically pulled back out of the IETF. The complete multi-year paralysis of working groups like f.e. over video encoding, datacenter encaps and architecture (nvo3), etc also helped.
This was further solidified by China literally purchasing majorities via telco proxies and "independent" consultants on payroll in the remaining working groups and getting them to constantly rehash void into empty and vice versa.. Most of these consultants were ex-USA/ex-Eu vendor standards people who were made redundant, but did not surrender participation. So all China needed to do is throw them a bone in the form of paying a bag of peanuts (you should see their allowed expenses) and some retainer.
Add to that the two decade IPv6 clusterf*ck which is yet to work properly run by religious cretins that are yet to acknowledge that the whole router advertisement dumf*ck imbecility is a solution looking for a problem in the age of DHCP. This is without even starting on the even more dumbf*ck imbecility of disallowing DHCPv6 giving v4 config and v4 giving v6 config. As well as gazillion other idiocies.
So all the prerequisites for a new IPv7 to march in and fix all of that are here. Autoconfig, traceability, intercept, lack of anonymity as well as taking the IETF behind the shed and shooting it in the head to ensure everything is under telco and government control - via the ITU.
All of that has been long coming and started as a multi-move, multi-year combination nearly 15 years ago. We lost.Check. Mate. We also helped it. Year after year after year.
Re: (Score:2)
Told us what? And who were the nay sayers? Are you implying that China's desire to build their own internet complete with an absence of gambling and hookers is somehow your prediction rather than the general consensus of everyone in the west?
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think anyone questions the uhh, intentions of the CCP.
However, that doesn't mean all things they do are evil, and that they can't be cooperated with for the sake of peace and advancement."
Only when it serves their objectives to get what they want long term. Talk to the Xinjiang about how those discussions are going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Talk to the US about Japanese internment camps in the 40s.
Talk to the Germans about theirs.
Talk to the Brits about India.
Come the fuck on. None of our hands are clean. Let's try to stay on topic.
Every country works in what it considers its own interests. There will be an assortment of countries that agree and disagree on these various interests, and that binary delineation will not be constant across all issues. This makes room for cooperation.
You've got an ax to grind. Go wave your flag so
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, talk to the Germans about theirs. They recognize the idea was so abhorrent and evil that they outlawed both membership in, and praise of, the political party that arranged them. They made it illegal to deny what happened in those camps. German concentration camps are also the only ones you named that are comparable to Chinese camps in terms of violations against the victims. And what happened in the German camps is recognized by essentially everyone as crimes against humanity.
There's also the fact
Re: (Score:2)
Stop shilling to defend genocide camps. The US during WW2 and UK-in-India didn't have policies or practices of organized rape, organ harvesting, or brutality against religious minorities.
There's a reason people said "never again!" after Germany's behavior during WW2. But not China, which carries out the same ideas. And not you, who boldly declares "moral outrage [over genocide] is stupid as national policy".
Re: (Score:2)
Get your Evil Empire shit out of here.
The fucked up Chinese reeducation camps are a far cry from genocide.
The fact that you need to call them that shows that you have zero intellectual honesty to offer here.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in very good company [wikipedia.org] in recognizing it as genocide.
What are you going to deny next, the Holodomor?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody makes the claim of genocide.
They do make the claim of "cultural genocide", which is some kind of fucking anti-doublespeak for forced conformity.
Nobody thinks commie reeducation camps are a good thing. They're fucking terrible to free-thinking folk.
But reclassifying them as genocide is intellectually dishonest at best, and fucking moronic at worst.
What are you going to deny next, the Holodomor?
Deny what? That it was a genocide? Absolutely.
The Holodomor was a lot of fucked up things. A genocide,
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the whole section that I linked to, instead of stopping reading as soon as you think it agreed with you. The Biden campaign, Secretary of State Blinken, our current ambassador to the UN, the Trump administration, the US Senate, the Canadian House of Commons, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and more, all agree that China's campaign -- which in spite of your attempts to minimize it, goes far beyond simple re-education camps -- is genocidal.
Re: (Score:2)
Recheck your links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Both were or are genocides.
Re: (Score:2)
Through June 2020, most scholars, media commentators, and international barristers cautiously labeled the human rights situation in Xinjiang as a cultural genocide.
From link 1.
Whether the Holodomor was genocide is still the subject of academic debate, as are the causes of the famine and intentionality of the deaths.
From link 2.
If you continue to read link 1, you will see that the label of actual genocide is limited nearly exclusive to the American body politic, and that attempts to label it as such in the UN have consistently failed.
The ICC is still waiting to see or hear whatever evidence has led North American governments to label it a genocide.
Still waiting.
So no, as it sits right now, neither is conclusively a genocide.
But thanks for your opinion on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The US calls it a genocide.
Ya, we've never designated people Axises of Evil, Evil empires, or any other shit like that before, have we?
Nobody is minimizing shit.
I'm looking at the evidence we have, looking at the definition of genocide, and guess what- it doesn't fucking match.
Is it possible it's really a genocide going on? Sure. I can buy that.
But there isn't evidence supporting that conclusion as yet.
Cultural genocide? Sure- something along those lines is *definitely* going on. But I'd a
Re: (Score:2)
In the topic Classification which was linked there's a section called Ethnocide or cultural genocide and one called Genocide or crimes against humanity. Did you seriously not even read the headlines of the topic he linked so that you only saw the first one or are you just being dishonest? By the way the actual genocide section is four times longer than the cultural genocide one. Here are some excerpts:
The actual genocide wasn't worth reading, because if you read it, it quite clearly states that the only people who think it's a genocide are the American body politic.
The UN has consistently voted down attempts to label it as such.
The ICC continues to wait for evidence that it is.
The only argument that holds any weight right now, is that it's a "cultural genocide"
Which is a scary way of saying reeducation camps/gulags. Which are certainly fucking terrible. But they're also not a fucking genocide.
When
Re: (Score:2)
Go fucking learn something child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But what's actually going on?
Are they incompetent? Are they not following orders? Or are things being fucked up in translation, innocently or otherwise?
Because what's going on in Xinjiang isn't anything even approaching "destroying them root and branch"
Maybe they were talking about the terrorists?
That's the problem with sound bites and uncontextual snippets of text.
Re: (Score:2)
Labeling the mass incarceration and "re-education" of a population with a very high rate of terrorists a genocide is just the kind of fucking thing I'd expect from some dumb fuck who thinks it's OK to drop bombs on their heads or torture them individually instead.
Chinese re-education camps are totally fucked up, just like Soviet Gulags were.
I've even heard that you don't want to bend over and pick up the soap in an American prison.
But a genocide, the
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeroll.
Talk to the US about Japanese internment camps in the 40s.
Talk to the Germans about theirs.
Talk to the Brits about India.
No, lets not talk about something that no one alive today had anything to do with. Let's talk about what people are actually doing, now.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that have to do with anything.
The point had nothing to do with whether or not it was contemporary, unless you're trying to argue that it was OK because it was in the 20th century instead of the 21st. If that's your argument, please make it
The point, which you missed, was that nobody has clean hands. Everyone does fucked up shit that they think is right.
China is fighting against a US-labeled terrorist organization within their own borders. Their fight against them is to use reeducation cam
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to the same. While we can look back at our own with shame, it's nowhere near like what happened in Germany...go visit Dachau and Auschwitz...I have.
Re: (Score:2)
I said we've all done evil shit.
Now, since you have been to Dachau, certainly you don't mind pointing out that those are not even close to the same as a Chinese re-education camp.
Or do you dare to say that they are? If so, let me get some popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because power & control. Jeez, what rock have you been hiding under? This is America dammit. We don't fuck around with freedom around here. We snatch that shit up and charge you for it!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:US Democrats.... (Score:5, Informative)
>"Republicans created the enhanced secret police secret courts Patriot Act.Stop being a cunt sewing division."
House: 144 Democrats voted yes, and 3 Republicans voted no.
Senate: ALL BUT ONE Democrat voted yes. That is 48 D votes yes and 1 D no, and 1 D not voting.
Nice try to frame it as a Republican-only thing. So who was it trying to "sew division"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why must everything be turned into something political?
Totalitarian paradise plan, announced in real world, is a politic matter. When someone downplay things and say something like "don't be political on blah blah blah", it is a clear indicator that they are either brainwashed to be supporters / apologists of evil politicians, or part of evil themselves.
If you sincerely think that US Democrats aren't evil and aren't loving this "New IP" plan, you may say so. But if you downplay a political news and request others to not read the matter in a political angle,
Re: US Democrats.... (Score:2)
Neither side of the left/right divide wants a small government.
They only differ in which government departments get to rape you first:
Left = The IRS
Right = Military and law enforcement
Neither side wants to reduce the ability of government to bootface you.
Re:US Democrats.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no right/left to deficit spending or government size, though if we must be accurate, the "Big Government Deficit Spending" left has a better track record of shrinking the government and reducing the deficit.
Sauce. [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, both sides are willing to cut taxes, and both sides are willing to increase spending on services. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, and Bush increased medicare spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Only I also added the little pokey piece of inconvenient information that the Dems are objectively the better candidate to vote for if your actual concern is government size and deficit.
Neither side is small or big government. Neither side is pro or anti deficit spending.
Statistically, a Democrat is more likely to shrink the government and reduce the deficit.
Those are just facts, and I make no extrapolations from them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why? The Republicans are the authoritarians who suck up to dictators.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf is this CCP astroturfing bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
criminals, paedophiles and general a-holes
Add drug dealers and you have what authoritarian governments will use to sell this to their populations around the world, oft called Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [wikipedia.org]. I fear that we will be looked back on as the generation that experienced a free Internet (although tomorrow's history books will say that it was a wild west and how lucky that the Internet is now safe) - I hope that I am wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If they where track-able many would stop being such a-hole and the rest would be in jail. The issues is of course those who wish to abuse the system, for financial, political or religious reasons.
I wonder what country has the most people in jail [google.com] then...
Re: (Score:3)
It becomes increasingly difficult for authoritarian regimes to incite hatred of "those peeps over there" if your populace is in constant contact with "those peeps).
The opposite seems to happen in the real world though. See for example the extreme partisanship in today's political discourse, on both sides. We're at a point where rational conversation is almost impossible between political opponents. Instead, the norm has become to completely reject the other side's point of view, launch accusations of *ism - fill in according to your political penchant - and start witch hunts (see the recent RMS boondogle).
And I think the main culprit is not the government - it's comp