5 ms·

The intention of cutting out bad actors seems to be in the right place, but using "Clean" for the terminology is really unnecessarily inflammatory.

52-6F-62 6y ago
I'd add that the collection of telecom companies at the bottom of the page is grossly misleading. It makes them appear as signatories or as if they're following America's lead.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Probably true. At the same time, they may have no choice. This sort of thing is not elective. There are a lot of people around me taking that as a list of companies not to do business with. As if this will save them from the global surveillance dragnet. But here's the thing, you either submit to american surveillance and tracking, or you submit to some other nation's surveillance and tracking. You will not be able to choose companies that don't partner with their national governments for surveillance and tracking. So people taking this as a list of cooperating companies, and asking how to avoid this system, are being a little naive. Thinking that somehow, not being on our network will save them from surveillance. It won't. Best case, it saves them from surveillance by us. It is a sad future. I'll concede you that.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    The point I was referring to is that is that companies are listed that have announced Ericcson as their network infrastructure hardware supplier for years, and the decision has nothing to do with Pompeo's "Clean Path". However, they are listed as if they are following the directive rather than having been long in front of it. It's gross political posturing, useful or not.
waihtis 6y ago
All I can think of is the story about how toothpaste was made popular.
jayd16 6y ago
There's no good intention here. Its clearly a political document. It even calls out hiding covid research from China as if that helps humanity in any way.
non-entity 6y ago
I think the current administration has seen major success, in part by being inflammatory and is just trying to keep up the publicity.

52-6F-62 6y ago

I'd add that the collection of telecom companies at the bottom of the page is grossly misleading. It makes them appear as signatories or as if they're following America's lead.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Probably true. At the same time, they may have no choice. This sort of thing is not elective. There are a lot of people around me taking that as a list of companies not to do business with. As if this will save them from the global surveillance dragnet. But here's the thing, you either submit to american surveillance and tracking, or you submit to some other nation's surveillance and tracking. You will not be able to choose companies that don't partner with their national governments for surveillance and tracking. So people taking this as a list of cooperating companies, and asking how to avoid this system, are being a little naive. Thinking that somehow, not being on our network will save them from surveillance. It won't. Best case, it saves them from surveillance by us. It is a sad future. I'll concede you that.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  The point I was referring to is that is that companies are listed that have announced Ericcson as their network infrastructure hardware supplier for years, and the decision has nothing to do with Pompeo's "Clean Path". However, they are listed as if they are following the directive rather than having been long in front of it. It's gross political posturing, useful or not.

waihtis 6y ago

All I can think of is the story about how toothpaste was made popular.

jayd16 6y ago

There's no good intention here. Its clearly a political document. It even calls out hiding covid research from China as if that helps humanity in any way.

non-entity 6y ago

I think the current administration has seen major success, in part by being inflammatory and is just trying to keep up the publicity.