6 ms·

Two things. There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to d

Two things. There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with espionage and sabotage operations as well as foreign propaganda. One of the main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the companies that the information - which usually amounts to close to all network traffic at the border and sometimes inside the corporate network and for many companies the customer records it keeps (although some are merely programs whereby only malware and hacker IPs or propaganda social media posts, etc are shared) - can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. This is something that many organizations, including the EFF, are not talking about. Second thing. The purposes of these programs are not to combat terrorism - the defense industries of the Western world feel they need surveillance and propaganda capabilities because their superpower status is hollowing out as the world's economic base shifts to the Asia Pacific and as new challenges to Western institutions such as super- and hyper-sonic warhead delivery systems enable ICBMs to land payloads across the globe now in under 40 minutes. It is challenges to the old order that make our democratic institutions feel they need to reach for our rights to defend themselves. The Constitution is a peacetime document - and there is no peace for powers that feel their influence hollowing out. It is not useful to discuss these programs in terms of terrorism - they are not designed for terrorism.

adventured 11y ago
I dispute that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific. The US still has the same share of global GDP that it had 35 years ago, and faces no credible threat to the dollar's dominance. The US economy is larger than the size of Japan + China combined, and is now 250% larger than Japan, and that gap will increase significantly. Canada has become vastly stronger over that time, it has as large of an economy as India with just 2.7% of the population (with not even a small fraction of the problems that India faces). Mexico's GDP has doubled in 15 years. Brazil has become one of the major GX economies, with an economy 50% larger than Australia or South Korea. Spain has as big of an economy - even after all the problems they've had - as South Korea (which is the #4 economy in the Pacific region). Germany, the #2 economy in the West, is likely to pass Japan's economy in size in the next 10 to 15 years (with 1/3 less people). In the last 20 years that Japan has been treading water and taking on vast debt, Germany's economy has doubled in size post re-unification. Most of the best countries in the world in terms of high standard of living are in Europe. Meanwhile the Asia Pacific region has nearly two billion people living in what can only be described as intense poverty by Western standards. China alone has ~600 million unemployed captive 'farmers' earning $3 / day, because there are no other jobs for those people to do. Japan is in such dire condition 40% of their budget goes to paying interest on their debt, their GDP hasn't grown in 20 years, and they've gotten so desperate they've taken to aggressively debasing the Yen to keep their government solvent (rapidly chopping down the Japanese standard of living in the process). Japan is of course Asia's second largest economy. China has spent the last six years post great-recession faking their growth by taking on $30+ trillion in new debt, in the process becoming one of the most indebted nations on earth. Japan and China, Asia's two biggest economies, are facing disastrous demographics issues, while they simultaneously drown in debt (a bad combination when you have to take care of a lot of elderly). Compare the top 20 economies of the West vs the top 20 economies of the Asia Pacific, in terms of incomes, wealth, standard of living - it's not even remotely a close contest. The 10th largest economy in the West is the Netherlands ($50k GDP per capita); compare them to Malaysia ($10k GDP per capita) or Thailand ($5k GDP per capita). I fail to see how this sum represents a shift to the Asia Pacific economically.
- xnull2guest 11y ago
  It should be noted that many people have gone bankrupt over the past three decades predicting the end of China's growth (adjusted for purchasing power, China's GDP has already surpassed the United States GDP). Anyway, a couple things. First: the claim is that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific - not that it is already there. One reason for this is that these (huge) economies are emerging into consumer rather than producer economies and another that much of the modern industrial capacity for 21st century goods (e.g. electronics) are centered in this area. The Renminbi is a credible threat to the dollar. The second thing is that this is the perception of the Western world - it is the reason for the Bush and Obama administrations' joint plan for the Pivot to Asia. Maybe our government is wrong - but this perspective is what informs it and is leading its decisions. The third thing of course is that your dossier is very coarse. It fails to mention the problems in the Eurozone and the financial crashes centered around the dollar. It casts the Spanish economy in good light and the Chinese one as bad. It mentions Canada's growth, but not that it has been driven by investment in China. Curiously, it uses Japan as a comparison for the US economy - a country I would consider on the Western system - and later uses Japan as an example of why the Asia Pacfic is weak. Finally, economics have more to do with growth than they do with wealth. It does not matter that Asia is not (so) wealthy right now. What matter is that the growth is and will be centered in the Asia Pacific. The investment, global investment, will be there. Everyone wants a piece of the 7%+ pie. This while the Western world, while rich, is struggling to grow at 2%. It is not enough to look at who has the wealth - you need to look at who will be getting wealth. What Washington thinktanks are talking about right now is: - How can we get the Japanese people to agree with expanded US military deployment there? - Can we get S. Korea to reunify with N. Korea, what would China think, and what are the prospects for Korea to become a world power? - What broad power plays are going to be made by Xi Jingping? How can we prevent China from gaining control of the major ocean trade routes? - What investments can the Western World make in Eurasia? Can a strong partnership with India, with its emerging economy and large population, enable us to compete in the region? How can we keep India off of the AIIB (esp. wrt coal)? (And of course a great number of things not related to the Asia Pacific, like how to keep the Arctic as a no-man's land) So anyway, I'm not actually making the claim that the Asia Pacific is going to be the center for economic growth of the world for the next 40 years. I am more properly making the claim that Western institutions believe this and are responding to it.
AhrowTway 11y ago
> There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with espionage and sabotage operations Citations please.
hellbanner 11y ago
Can you clarify your first paragraph or provide links -- related to company infrastructure cannot be used against them in court? Googling for "company information shared network cannot legally" wasn't very productive.
- xnull6guest 11y ago
  Like Fusion Centers of the Department of Homeland Defense, the United States has centers called ISACs (Information Sharing and Analysis Centers) which collate data from American industries, look for threats, patterns and anomalies, and will link this data to the intelligence community and classified information. A Google search for "ISAC information sharing" will get you information on these. ISACs are public-private enterprises. Onboarding to information sharing programs are not required by law, but some of them are required if the corporation is going to handle government business. Due to its public-private nature, it is bound in some cases by private restrictions and in others by public restrictions - but in general enjoys the freedom of being able to work without the full limitations of others. There's a great talk (there is also a video somewhere...) of information sharing initiatives, policy, investments and brainstorming of solutions to problems ranging from the technical to the regulatory. At approximately 1:14:00 (though you may want to start a couple minutes earlier) you can hear the ISAC director discuss how important it is for corporations to understand that the US government will not use any information used by these programs for legal purposes. http://946d02147e6ceea118d6-b8988e53f7150d03e35b68af2656c7ba.r66.cf2.rackcdn.com/150401_cyber_security_0_hb_1.mp3 http://946d02147e6ceea118d6-b8988e53f7150d03e35b68af2656c7ba...
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Looking forward to it
grrowl 11y ago
> One of the main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the companies that the information [...] can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. Kind of like a corporate "fifth amendment"? It seems reasonable enough, if it can shift the power struggle over this data into the open.
- xnull6guest 11y ago
  Kind of like that, yes - though it is not so much a right as it is a practical consideration. The difficulty is that companies aren't going to willingly share information that might then be turned around to indict them. So to quell those fears the messaging is very clear: "we will not use this information to regulate or indict you".

adventured 11y ago

I dispute that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific. The US still has the same share of global GDP that it had 35 years ago, and faces no credible threat to the dollar's dominance. The US economy is larger than the size of Japan + China combined, and is now 250% larger than Japan, and that gap will increase significantly. Canada has become vastly stronger over that time, it has as large of an economy as India with just 2.7% of the population (with not even a small fraction of the problems that India faces). Mexico's GDP has doubled in 15 years. Brazil has become one of the major GX economies, with an economy 50% larger than Australia or South Korea. Spain has as big of an economy - even after all the problems they've had - as South Korea (which is the #4 economy in the Pacific region). Germany, the #2 economy in the West, is likely to pass Japan's economy in size in the next 10 to 15 years (with 1/3 less people). In the last 20 years that Japan has been treading water and taking on vast debt, Germany's economy has doubled in size post re-unification. Most of the best countries in the world in terms of high standard of living are in Europe. Meanwhile the Asia Pacific region has nearly two billion people living in what can only be described as intense poverty by Western standards. China alone has ~600 million unemployed captive 'farmers' earning $3 / day, because there are no other jobs for those people to do. Japan is in such dire condition 40% of their budget goes to paying interest on their debt, their GDP hasn't grown in 20 years, and they've gotten so desperate they've taken to aggressively debasing the Yen to keep their government solvent (rapidly chopping down the Japanese standard of living in the process). Japan is of course Asia's second largest economy. China has spent the last six years post great-recession faking their growth by taking on $30+ trillion in new debt, in the process becoming one of the most indebted nations on earth. Japan and China, Asia's two biggest economies, are facing disastrous demographics issues, while they simultaneously drown in debt (a bad combination when you have to take care of a lot of elderly). Compare the top 20 economies of the West vs the top 20 economies of the Asia Pacific, in terms of incomes, wealth, standard of living - it's not even remotely a close contest. The 10th largest economy in the West is the Netherlands ($50k GDP per capita); compare them to Malaysia ($10k GDP per capita) or Thailand ($5k GDP per capita). I fail to see how this sum represents a shift to the Asia Pacific economically.

xnull2guest 11y ago
It should be noted that many people have gone bankrupt over the past three decades predicting the end of China's growth (adjusted for purchasing power, China's GDP has already surpassed the United States GDP). Anyway, a couple things. First: the claim is that the world's economic base is shifting to the Asia Pacific - not that it is already there. One reason for this is that these (huge) economies are emerging into consumer rather than producer economies and another that much of the modern industrial capacity for 21st century goods (e.g. electronics) are centered in this area. The Renminbi is a credible threat to the dollar. The second thing is that this is the perception of the Western world - it is the reason for the Bush and Obama administrations' joint plan for the Pivot to Asia. Maybe our government is wrong - but this perspective is what informs it and is leading its decisions. The third thing of course is that your dossier is very coarse. It fails to mention the problems in the Eurozone and the financial crashes centered around the dollar. It casts the Spanish economy in good light and the Chinese one as bad. It mentions Canada's growth, but not that it has been driven by investment in China. Curiously, it uses Japan as a comparison for the US economy - a country I would consider on the Western system - and later uses Japan as an example of why the Asia Pacfic is weak. Finally, economics have more to do with growth than they do with wealth. It does not matter that Asia is not (so) wealthy right now. What matter is that the growth is and will be centered in the Asia Pacific. The investment, global investment, will be there. Everyone wants a piece of the 7%+ pie. This while the Western world, while rich, is struggling to grow at 2%. It is not enough to look at who has the wealth - you need to look at who will be getting wealth. What Washington thinktanks are talking about right now is: - How can we get the Japanese people to agree with expanded US military deployment there? - Can we get S. Korea to reunify with N. Korea, what would China think, and what are the prospects for Korea to become a world power? - What broad power plays are going to be made by Xi Jingping? How can we prevent China from gaining control of the major ocean trade routes? - What investments can the Western World make in Eurasia? Can a strong partnership with India, with its emerging economy and large population, enable us to compete in the region? How can we keep India off of the AIIB (esp. wrt coal)? (And of course a great number of things not related to the Asia Pacific, like how to keep the Arctic as a no-man's land) So anyway, I'm not actually making the claim that the Asia Pacific is going to be the center for economic growth of the world for the next 40 years. I am more properly making the claim that Western institutions believe this and are responding to it.

AhrowTway 11y ago

> There are a huge number of information sharing programs in effect in America and these have been cornerstone initiatives for the US government to deal with espionage and sabotage operations Citations please.

hellbanner 11y ago

Can you clarify your first paragraph or provide links -- related to company infrastructure cannot be used against them in court? Googling for "company information shared network cannot legally" wasn't very productive.

xnull6guest 11y ago
Like Fusion Centers of the Department of Homeland Defense, the United States has centers called ISACs (Information Sharing and Analysis Centers) which collate data from American industries, look for threats, patterns and anomalies, and will link this data to the intelligence community and classified information. A Google search for "ISAC information sharing" will get you information on these. ISACs are public-private enterprises. Onboarding to information sharing programs are not required by law, but some of them are required if the corporation is going to handle government business. Due to its public-private nature, it is bound in some cases by private restrictions and in others by public restrictions - but in general enjoys the freedom of being able to work without the full limitations of others. There's a great talk (there is also a video somewhere...) of information sharing initiatives, policy, investments and brainstorming of solutions to problems ranging from the technical to the regulatory. At approximately 1:14:00 (though you may want to start a couple minutes earlier) you can hear the ISAC director discuss how important it is for corporations to understand that the US government will not use any information used by these programs for legal purposes. http://946d02147e6ceea118d6-b8988e53f7150d03e35b68af2656c7ba.r66.cf2.rackcdn.com/150401_cyber_security_0_hb_1.mp3 http://946d02147e6ceea118d6-b8988e53f7150d03e35b68af2656c7ba...
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Looking forward to it

grrowl 11y ago

> One of the main features of these information sharing acts is that, if the company onboards to information sharing voluntarily, the government garuntees the companies that the information [...] can not be used against the corporation for any legal purposes. Kind of like a corporate "fifth amendment"? It seems reasonable enough, if it can shift the power struggle over this data into the open.

xnull6guest 11y ago
Kind of like that, yes - though it is not so much a right as it is a practical consideration. The difficulty is that companies aren't going to willingly share information that might then be turned around to indict them. So to quell those fears the messaging is very clear: "we will not use this information to regulate or indict you".