12 ms·
National security is the sum total of the individual earned securities of each citizen, including economic, political, social, health, cultural, military and al
by nonrandomstring 4y ago
National security is the sum total of the individual earned securities
of each citizen, including economic, political, social, health,
cultural, military and all sorts of security that pertain to the
identity we call a nation.
What these guys are talking about is something else. They are talking
about the security of the security services, their own self interests
and the status quo of enmeshed relations between three letter agencies
and a few captured tech giants.
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. National security is best
served by a diverse, pluralistic, open, heterogeneous tech industry.
There is no reason intelligence needs cannot function properly with
such an ecosystem, but it would have to do so through the Rule of Law,
and systems of warrants that the incumbents have sought to bypass this
last 20 years.
- colpabar 4y agoI have to ask - by "diverse", do you mean "different people from different backgrounds who have different viewpoints"? Or do you mean "people who all think the same way but have different skin colors"?
- edgyquant 4y agoDiverse means the people come from different backgrounds.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago> I have to ask - by "diverse", do you mean "different people from different backgrounds who have different viewpoints"? Yes, people and institutions, and technologies. What gives security is something like "hybrid vigour" obtained by the whole system because it has evolutionary resilience (it's survivable, at least in part, to the greatest range of possible threats) Parts of a resilient system can even be in moderate tension as they keep a check on each other. For examples; it would be stronger to have both centralised and distributed philosophies represented; it would be good to have a mixture of public and private funding models in operation; small and large entities capable of agile innovation, and reliable scale. That makes it hard for a malevolent or erroneous force to infiltrate and take out the whole barrel of apples. Of course, diversity of gender, religion, race, age, political leaning and wealth tend to make a more interesting and vibrant workplace, but that's not primarily what I am saying.
- netizen-936824 4y agoGreater variation in a population makes it more robust to adverse events
- anamax 4y agoDifferent backgrounds does not imply different viewpoints. Different viewpoints does not imply different backgrounds.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway_1928 4y agoThe national security argument is a red herring. It is in the interest of monopolies to keep their monopolies going. And they have all the money and lobbyists in the world to make it happen.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago> they have all the money and lobbyists in the world to make it happen But not the wisdom.
- sangnoir 4y agoSplitting Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon into 40 smaller tech companies would result in larger tech companies from elsewhere - mostly China - eating American tech industry's lunch on the world stage. Large companies have massive resources which are a competitive advantage. Having these titanic companies headquartered in the US, beholden to American laws, employing Americans, being a symbol of American prowess abroad and listed on American stock exchanges is in American interests on multiple tangible & intangible levels; including allowing American engineers to command ridiculous salaries and granting the government a lot of soft-power. The recent sanctions on Russia (and previously Huawei/ZTE) shows howuch that soft-power is worth
- nonrandomstring 4y agoYou are talking about power. I am talking about security. They are related, but different.
- sangnoir 4y agoThere will be security implications when Americans are hypothetically mostly using Chinese tech (Weibo, Didi, Baidu), should it leapfrog a kneecapped US tech industry - unless the US also bans Chinese tech - which would isolate the US and make it less competitive while ceding tech leadership in the rest of the world. Also, all the botnet-, APT-, ransomware and CSAM investigation & disruption ops would be hampered when the #1 desktop operating system, #1 & #2 phone OS authors, #1 network equipment manufacturer,#1 social network and top 3 cloud providers are no longer under your legal jurisdiction
- paulryanrogers 4y agoCan't the US just cap market share of any company foreign or domestic?
- sangnoir 4y agoHow might that be implemented?