Slashdot Mirror


China Walks Out of Wireless LAN Security Talks

Ant writes "A CommsDesign article reports that China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoring the IEEE's 802.11i ANSI-certified wireless LAN security scheme over its own controverisal proposal, EE Times has learned. The gambit came after China's Wireless Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security scheme was withdrawn and placed on a slower track by the ISO." From the article: "China initially agreed last year to refrain from making its WAPI security scheme mandatory for wireless LAN equipment in China. It then approached ISO with a fast-track submission in an effort to make WAPI an international security standard."

313 comments

  1. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Really though, who the fuck cares if China pulls out of wireless security talks? Not trying to troll, just asking a question.

    1. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by selfabuse · · Score: 5, Funny

      the Chinese?

    2. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 2, Funny

      i would have to agree...other then producing the best, low cost , child sweat shops and product forgeries in the world...what does China really contribute to the world?

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    3. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck cares that you don't care about this? why did you even bother to click the link, let alone type a reply?

      begone, troll

    4. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by DigitalHammer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    5. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Thar's money in dem hills!

    6. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Let's see...currently they produce about 10% of the textiles purchased in the US. At their current growth rate, they will have over 50% of the US market(this has been forecast by industry experts). Electronics, they are the new kid on the block, growing very fast. A lot of semiconductor production is moving there very rapidly along with the production of computer parts.

      Since we so far, haven't done that well with the wireless security standard, and they are about to become the 800 lb gorrilla of the world, maybe we should take a look at using China's. Or they could just flood the market with their own standard.

    7. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You mean a lot of improvised inventions taken using existing 1st world technology with a dash of industrial espionage.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    8. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by synx · · Score: 0, Troll

      ok, what have they invented in the last 1500 years?!

      Thanks for the post, I have held the position that China hasn't invented anything recently, and this seems to support my position.

    9. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they are growing... which is great for a communist country to do... if im not mistaken other than cold war russia and germany... they would probably be the first sucessful communist government to succeed in producing a government with a stable economy. its true that textiles are comming from china ( which by the way has closed a lot of factories here in columbus, ga and lost many people there jobs..but thats another story) but its hard to push your standard if the rest of the world is not using it. they could push all day long ...other companies will go with the flow and follow ISO standards ( big companies like Cisco/Linksys and others) it would make sense for China to discuss why they feel their standard is better instead of stroming out... you cant act like the 800 lbs gorrilla until you weigh 800 lbs? but you bring alot of good points to the table

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    10. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on, there are many reasons to like China:

      1. It's a brutal dictatorship.
      2. They invaded Tibet, and murdered 1/3 of the inhabitants.
      3. 14 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese.
      4. They make for extremely poor immigrants, refusing to integrate in the host country that graciously allowed them entry, and indeed consider themselves superior to the "mongrel people" (whites) and "black shit" (blacks).
      5. To the Chinese, legal contracts are just sort of like suggested behaviour, but are in no way binding.
      6. The bizarre, superstitious bullshit known as Chinese medicine has led to the decimation of Chinese wildlife, especially bears. So they've turned to other countryies, notably Canada, to provide the materials for their voodoo. In British Columbia, it's essentially a black bear holocaust.
      7. The Chinese government brutally represses the Falun Gong people, who are a peaceful bunch.

      I could go on and on, but it's too depressing.

    11. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You left out chinese food.

    12. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you on every other point except #7. I wish much, much, much more cracking down by a brutal dictatorship on any religious movement.

    13. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by DigitalHammer · · Score: 1

      No, I mean original inventions that were later improvised by the West that once used industrial espionage to obtain one of these inventions themselves.
      http://http//www.silk-road.com/artl/silkhistory.sh tml

    14. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how can you like any cuisine where you're hungry again half an hour later? Consider it added to the list, good sir!

    15. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, and I'm with you on the anti-religious bit. But the Falun Gongers, while crackpots, are sort of like Buddhists: crazy, but ultimately harmless. It would be like cracking down on yoga practitioners.

    16. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by magefile · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

    17. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by MOGua · · Score: 0

      Many big companies wish they can be part of China's booming economy. Even Google (the "Do-No-Evil" company) started censoring results for China. I am sure if your company were to be contracted by Chinese PC makers, you would be more than happy to set up branch locations in Beijing and Shanghai. Am I wrong? I think China already is one 800 lbs gorilla.

    18. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Actually, China has lost two million such jobs in the last couple of years to even lower-cost countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, and the Phillipines. They still have an edge in some things where infrastructure counts, but for knock-off items, they're overpriced on the world market.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by DigitalHammer · · Score: 1
    20. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's economy is growing because they are loosening their grip on the economy by allowing business ventures to profit on their own. Now China is more like your typical dictatorship than a communist govt.

    21. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that China isn't really Communist any more, and hasn't been Communist since Mao's death.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by rasz · · Score: 0

      well, guess WHO produces 95% of WiFi stuff

    23. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      American, are you?

    24. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "4. They make for extremely poor immigrants, refusing to integrate in the host country that graciously allowed them entry, and indeed consider themselves superior to the "mongrel people" (whites) and "black shit" (blacks)."

      Huh? I'm a son of 2nd generation Chinese immigrants and they've never exhibited opinions like that. In addition, they get along quite nicely with neighbors of various ethnicities. (Indian, Arab, white, to name a few) in one of the most racially diverse towns in North America: Toronto. Your generalizations are totally misguided, seriously.

    25. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by f0dder · · Score: 1

      Europe wants to sell their soul to the chinese; they want in on some of that Wal-Mart action.

      /at the same time criticizing Wal-Mart
      //business as usual (see Iraq, Iran, other axis's of evil)

    26. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by silconous · · Score: 0

      China does not have a billion customers, at most they have half of what the US has, most of China can't buy chicken and rice at the end of the day let alone wireless cards. I say let them backout. They are not the great economic superpower the media is making them out to be. Until they have a middle class I don't think they should be making the rules. Besides anyone really trust China to provide a security standard? Then to share it?

    27. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 1

      you can glue a cotton ball to the back of a turtle but it doesnt make him a jack rabbit. they may have changed somethings that dont make them "technicaly" a communist country...but they still do things the communist way

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    28. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are always anecdotal counterexamples. But come to Vancouver sometime, and ask people what their impressions of the Chinese are. Or ask the Chinese about white people. Or ask a bouncer at a bar what it means when the bar "goes Asian".

      The affects are much more profound here than in Toronto - Vancouver bears the brunt of Chinese immigration to Canada, but is a far smaller city.

    29. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that China isn't really Communist any more, and hasn't been Communist since Mao's death.

      One might even go so far as to say China has never been communists according to the doctrine laid out by Marx, but some form of Socialist Dictatorship. Even when Mao was in charge, they had constant battles with Moscow over the fact that China's communisim didn't match up with Russia's communisim. And neither was what Marx had envisioned.

      They make good fortune cookies, though.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    30. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by El+Gordo+Motoneta · · Score: 1

      So what does it mean? The bar going asian, i mean.

    31. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means if you're white and you walk into the place, the first thing that hits your mind is "oh shit, what am i doing here?" The amount of attitude in these places is astounding. On any given weekend (or weeknight), it'll be fight night. Hence the parent post mentioning "ask a bouncer." The result of all this is that they start imposing impossible ID requirements (5 pieces of photo ID) to in an attempt to keep asians out even though the place has already "gone asian."

    32. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by stor · · Score: 1

      Its only anecdotal evidence that's supporting both sides of this argument.

      Sure there are many Chinese with bad attitudes. There are also many with good attitudes. There are also many white people with good/bad attitudes.

      "They don't integrate" may be true in many places as it is with many other cultures. In multicultural societies often you end up with some (if I may borrow terms from Chemistry) "suspensions" rather than "solutions". We all have to put in an effort. For some, this is a lot of work apparently.

      Some people seem to think that this superficial arrogance/ racism is genetic. It's much more a societal issue than a medical issue.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    33. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With point number 4, you point out your adherence to the old notions that magnet Western nations like the U.S. and Canada should be a melting pot (a.k.a. homogenizing chamber) rather than a stew with many different ingredients that contribute to society without losing their distinct flavor. I simply can't see how you got to +5 Insightful with this load of crap, unless there a bunch of fellow Canadian closet racists in the mod pool.

      I have slightly more Chinese friends than not, here in San Francisco. That's not a matter of artificial preference or anything so strange as that, it's just a matter of circumstance, given the fact that I grew up appreciating and participating in the traditions of my Chinese neighbors - like living in the huge and varied Asian populations in Hawaii on a much smaller scale. These people, descendents of first and second generation immigrants, are just as diverse in mindset and ability to contribute to society as you or I. Just because they _tend_ to be more serious towards their respect of family traditions and customs (including fluency in the mother languages of a country some of them have never visited or wanted to visit) doesn't mean that they are the elitists you make them out to be. Having met many of their parents, I have only seen friendly people who were neighborly to people of all races. It takes something quite a bit more serious than "non-Chineseness" to get these people to mistrust you.

      So, you can respond to me and the Chinese-American poster above as "anecdotal counterexamples," but you haven't displayed much experience yourself with the realities of dealing with these people first-hand. Instead, you've just reinforced a stereotype that I've heard from a lot of non-white Americans about Canadians: that Canadians, with their tendency to align themselves to archaic notions of linear descendancy from something so romantically pure and whitebread as the British Empire, have an institutionalized tendency to be more subconsciously racist than typical white Americans. Say it ain't so, chief.

    34. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by afa · · Score: 1

      7. The Chinese government brutally represses the Fa lun Gong people, who are a peaceful bunch. Ridiculous, they are a peaceful bunch... Majority of them are mentally controlled by Master Li, who is the leader and a cheat. Btw, they used to refer 'light-year' as a unit of time....

    35. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by jameszhou2000 · · Score: 1

      Just for your information:

      Data till 11/2004

      The number of mobile users in China is
      329.92 million. Compared to last year, the number is increased by 59.97 million. The penetration rate of cell phone is 24.8%. That means, in every 4 chinese, there is one mobile phone user.

      By the way, the number of landline telephone users in China is 313.15 million. There are 50.4 million new landline phone users in the past year. The penetration rate for landline phone is 24.5%.

      The number of Internet users is 90 million (3 million new internet users in recent 3 months), and among them 22.86 million users use broadband connection ( the growth rate for broadband users is 105%, compared with the number for last year).

      Considering that there is a large portion of people who are small children and old seniors, 24.8% cell phone penetration rate is very big. Let's just say your information about China is not correct. During 7-day Chinese New Year holidays, 10 billion text messages (SMS) were sent. The China telecom companies make 1 billion yuans in just seven days.

    36. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by jameszhou2000 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of customers in China, and there are even more potential customers there. For example, for cell phone users, the number of cell phone users in China is already larger than the population of the USA.

    37. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you try some places in other communities, say, Little Italy, Greek Town, Korean Town, Jewish area, black neighborhood, and places in Quebec City?

      Tell me it will be totally different.

    38. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      christ, at least read the fucking response before you put your foot in your mouth, you moron.

      insightful my ass.

    39. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      christians started out similarly, no?!

    40. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by jameszhou2000 · · Score: 1

      About one third of the population in Lower British Columbia Mainland is of Chinese origin. Early Chinese settled there when they built the railroads hundreds years ago.

      I guess you might live in Vancouver and have a bad experience with some Chinese. The fact is, most Chinese currently living in Vancouver are rich people from Hong Kong. The attitude about you might not be something about race. Most likely it is the culture difference or social-class difference. Some might even deny they are Chinese. Contrary to your point#1, they left Hong Kong because they were afraid of the communist party when Hong Kong was returned to China in 1989. That group is totally different from the poorest peasants (they are the poorest even in China) living in Chinatown restaurants. These illegal immigrants come from one province (FuJian) mainland China. They live in Chinatown forever and they don't mingle into local. That's true. But that is only a small part. Also, they mind their own business, and they work hard to make a living. Even being hungry, they won't rob you or make any troubles.

      The third group might be the largest group recently coming from mainland China. They are students and engineers as legal immigrants. They do NOT live in Chinatown. They work in tech companies, universties, hosipitals, almost everywhere. They are integrating into the local country and contribute to the country.

      So when you talk about Chinese. Please do not mix them up. They are different. As a matter of fact, every single Chinese is unique. Do NOT sterotyping. The Chinese peopole living in Chinatown won't do a name-calling or feel superior to you. Most likely the rich Hong Kong might have an attitude about you, but I believe that might be related to the social class, not race. Even us, poor software engineers from mianland China have some bad experiences about being looked down upon by some rich Hong Kong women.

    41. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn, guess this anonymous internet shit cuts both ways. it's ok, thanks to us, you will soon switch job to taking drive-thru orders and your daughters will be turning tricks in our pubs.

    42. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can see falun gong followers marching in 'Imperial palace museum' and 'Cheung Kai Sak memorial museum' in Taiwan. The People Liberation Army would also like to do the same.

      Falun gong had a strong Taiwanese influence. Red China would give the Taiwanese infiltrators a black-eye treatment. The policy has not changed since 1940.

    43. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by demachina · · Score: 0

      If it hadn't been for the Arabs the Romans would have inflicted Roman numerals on us and that would have set us back millennia.

      The Romans don't have any particular claim to most of the stuff on your list.

      As for Irrigation: Evidence exists of irrigation in Mesopotamia and Egypt as far back as the 6th millennium BC.

      As for wine: Chemical tests of ancient pottery jars reveal that wine was (like beer) produced about 7000 years ago in what is today Iran, and is one of the first known biological engineering tasks, where the biological process of fermentation is used in a process. The earliest known evidence of wine dates to 5400 B.C., from Hajji Firuz Tepe in the Zagros Mountains of present-day Iran, near the city of Urmia.[1]

      As for roads: Many historical examples exist of road and road-building. Some of the most famous are the Roman roads and the Incan courier roads. The oldest engineered road yet discovered is the Sweet Track causeway in England, dating from the 3800s BC. In ancient times, transport by river was far easier and faster than travel by road, especially considering the cost of road construction and the difference in carrying capacity between carts and river barges - provided only that the rivers were navigable in the right places; availability of water transport also influenced settlement patterns

      As for medicine don't think the Romans have any particularly claim to it. Egyptians might have actually pioneered surgery. Most others were focused on diet and spirituality until the 18th century or so. It didn't really become very useful until the last couple of centuries.

      --
      @de_machina
    44. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. It's a brutal dictatorship."

      OK. That's true. But guess who invented those communism ideas. We chinese are victims of implementing "YOUR" ideas. I don't know if we, as the victims, are the ones to blame.

      "2. They invaded Tibet, and murdered 1/3 of the inhabitants."

      The same as number one. I know culture in Tibet is damaged to some extent. But if you have been to Tibet, you may know it is still the only place that keeps its own tradition and culture, compared to other places in China. Also, in history, Tibet has been a part of China for a long time. Sometimes in, sometimes out. Before communist party came to Tibet, the leaders (Lama) there treated local peole as slaves (in fact, the ordinary people ARE slaves of Lamas). They even used people's skin to do decoration or make drums. That part, I guess, is not what you may ever hear. Of course, the recent leader Dalai Lama is a great person and he left Tibet when he was a child. I am not trying to justify what communist party did in Tibet. My point is that those Lamas before 1949 were no better than communist parties. And in Qing Dynasty, Tibet was a part of China. During Republic of China (ROC) before 1949, it is true that Tibet had loose connection with the central government. But in official maps or any international business, it is still in China.

      I agree peole in Tibet should have their rights to decide their own lives. But, again, that's not Chinese people's fault. The ordinary Chinese people do not want to kill people in Tibet, right?

      "3. 14 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese."

      I don't know if the number is correct or not, but I am not surprised if it is true. However, things are getting better as in my hometown city. The central government now pays a lot of attention to envrionmental problems. The government officials' performance used to be based on city's GDP, but not any more. The new policy says, the performance review is based on GREEN GDP. That means, the envrionmental issues are also counted.

      "4. They make for extremely poor immigrants, refusing to integrate in the host country that graciously allowed them entry, and indeed consider themselves superior to the "mongrel people" (whites) and "black shit" (blacks)."

      No comments for the racism part 'cause they are not true. As you may know that the poor peole who refuse to mingle are only a small part of Chinse. Those people are illegal immigrants living in Chinatown, but they are hardworker, and try very hard to make a living. They never had a chance to get a good education. That's the reason why they do not integrate into local country. Because they can't! They dont even speak english!

      "5. To the Chinese, legal contracts are just sort of like suggested behaviour, but are in no way binding."

      This is US and Canada. If someone breaches the contract, I believe you have many ways to handle it.

      "6. The bizarre, superstitious bullshit known as Chinese medicine has led to the decimation of Chinese wildlife, especially bears. So they've turned to other countryies, notably Canada, to provide the materials for their voodoo. In British Columbia, it's essentially a black bear holocaust."

      Ok, you have a point about chinese traditional medicine. I agree with you about this point. They shouldn't kill animals. However, the majority of those medicine are made from plants. That is correct that there is no solid thoery for chinese traditional medicine. but, these medicine is of thousands of years experiences. Even without solid theory, most of them simply work.

      "7. The Chinese government brutally represses the Falun Gong people, who are a peaceful bunch."

      Just for your information, the leader of FalunGong claimed himself to be the only true GOD. Anyway, I agree with you Chinese government shouldn't repress the group. I am on your side on the last point. But you do know, this is just what the Chinese government did, not Chinese people, right?

    45. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with the article? Why can't you make your point without bashing China or Chinese people?

      America is not perfect either:

      Killed off almost the entire Native American population
      Broke almost every treaty signed with the Native Americans
      Enslaved the African Americans
      Lynched many African Americans
      Invaded Iraq on false pretenses

    46. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by magefile · · Score: 1

      It's a Monty Python & the Life of Brian quote. Not a serious post.

    47. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by andalay · · Score: 1

      You mean a lot of improvised inventions taken using existing 1st world technology with a dash of industrial espionage.



      YES! Because all 1st world inventions were made in a box. All the advancements even! They even invented numbers!

    48. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You must be joking. Chinese food is so heavy and greasy I don't need to eat for days afterwards.

    49. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by jack_canada · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your statements, but HongKong was returned to China in 1997, not 1989.

    50. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by libcoder · · Score: 1

      Well not so much 'industrial' espionage back then, but yeah, Europe worked its way out of the dark ages by ripping off everyone else. Literally, everyone else.
      Anyway, I'd feel a lot better if China didn't control the standard, as it is they have a ton of control over our economy, and quite frankly every once a while there comes an entity that makes Bill Gates seem like the lesser of two threats.

      --
      RIAA and the MPAA, putting the "F U" in "fair use".
  2. This is the right end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China! Hello!

  3. The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    China walks out of wifi talks
    By Chris Johnston, Times Online

    Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary, today urged China to go back to the negotiating table after it withdrew from talks on its wifi programme.

    China announced last night that it has wifi, which it claims are necessary to counter US aggression.

    The secretive communist state withdrew from talks designed to reduce tension in the area.

    Speaking in London, Mr Annan urged the other parties to the talks - including the US, China and Taiwan - to encourage China to return to the negotiations.

    Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, warned China would be making "a major mistake" if it continued to stay away from talks.

    Mr Annan said: "I expect that with efforts by the other countries involved, China can be brought back to the table. I would urge them to engage with China and bring them back to the table and for talks to resume as soon as possible."

    Mr Straw echoed the Secretary General's comments, adding: "It would be a major mistake by the DPRC (Democratic Peoples Republic of China) were they to go down this route."

    Mr Annan is in London promoting plans for reform of the UN drawn up following bitter wrangling within the international community over the Iraq war.

    A high-level panel commissioned by the Secretary General in 2003 produced a report last December setting out recommendations for reform, many of which have been strongly backed by Britain.

    They include expanding the Security Council to reflect the world's changing balance of power and new guidelines on UN intervention to allow faster intervention where civilians are threatened by the actions of their own government.

    "Today we face threats to world order and world peace of a kind and a scale that we have not seen since the height of the Cold War," Mr Annan said. "But if we can agree on ways to respond effectively to those threats, we also have a unique opportunity to build a world that will be safer, fairer and freer for all."

    Mr Straw said he endorsed the report's central recommendation that the UN should be more prepared to take preventative action against potential threats from terrorism or rogue states. "The central issue is collective security and the use of force," he said.

    The Prime Minister also hailed the panel's report as "a remarkable achievement" and strongly endorsed Mr Annan, who has come under fire over allegations that millions from the UN-administered Oil-for-Food programme were misdirected.

    Introducing the Secretary General at the Banqueting House in London's Whitehall, he said: "He has handled himself with very great distinction, with a lot of wisdom and, in difficult circumstances, has been a tremendous unifier."

    Mr Annan later said he did not believe the Oil-for-Food scandal had undermined his authority to push through reform of the UN. "I think the member states are well aware of what happened with that scheme and the complex nature of the scheme," he said.

    "We have set up a very competent, independent panel to look at it because we are concerned about it and want to get to the bottom of it. Their first report has indicated that they are determined to get to the bottom of it and not to do a whitewash, as some people have claimed."
    1. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the part where Bush signed-off on a June 2005 invasion of Iran.

    2. Re:The article... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1

      right, Bush called him up and told him this crap eh?

      Ritter is so full of shit I can smell him from the west coast.

      Fsck the chinese, fsck, fsck, fsck the chinese!

    3. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Bush. Sy. Hersh. At least, that's what he alluded to in the article. You know, the guy with a pulitzer prize and the most Polk awards in the history of the award (5)?

    4. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean...

      Bush is so full of shit I can smell him from the west coast.

      Ritter told us Iraq had no WMD. Bush told us the opposite. Which one was right, dynamic cast?

    5. Re:The article... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1

      If Saddam had no WMD, who gassed the Kurds (I know that was long ago)?

      The Iraqi's can vote for Saddam for their new leader if they want to. Do you think they will?

      Which terrorist organization do you belong too?

    6. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Saddam had no WMD, who gassed the Kurds (I know that was long ago)?

      You answered your own question.

      The Iraqi's can vote for Saddam for their new leader if they want to. Do you think they will?


      This means what?

      Which terrorist organization do you belong too?

      Unfortunately, the same one that you belong to.

    7. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hu Jintao: Ansi Nazi !!
      Kofi Annan: Wapi Commie !!
      Homer Simpson: "...sure, IN theeoory, in theory communism works..."

    8. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He destroyed them all after the first Iraq war. That was the whole point, you ignorant bastard.

    9. Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ritter told us Iraq had no WMD. Bush told us the opposite. Which one was right?

      Answer the damn question, dynamic_cast

    10. Re:The article... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1

      Prove that

  4. Can't fault China... by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    This really isn't China's fault. I used to do this kind of thing too when I was playing marbles around the age of 4. If things didn't go my way, I'd round up all my marbles and stomp off on my way home.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Can't fault China... by rokzy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      yes, and the US has been doing it since, well, forever.

      some treaty or law in your way? just take unilateral action!

    2. Re:Can't fault China... by ADRA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Example,

      The US was the only major nation in the world to not support the international court. Why you ask? Because they wanted to exempt American citizens from being held to the same standards as the rest of the world. *gasp* you say.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And you don't think an international court (international in the same way as the UN, which is run by the arabs) would drag every single US soldier who killed an arab to the court. With a little bit of aid from the french, they'd probably succeed too.

    4. Re:Can't fault China... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to do this kind of thing too when I was playing marbles around the age of 4. If things didn't go my way, I'd round up all my marbles and stomp off on my way home.

      Wow. How did you engineer a secret backdoor into your marble game?

    5. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. How did you engineer a secret backdoor into your marble game?

      "By getting into my van, little boy", whispered the pedophile.

    6. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your saying they are acting like a 4 year old? To be honest, I didn't read the whole article, but I'm presuming the reasoning behind not including China's technology is based on technological grounds, and not political grounds.

    7. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ignorance is amazing.

    8. Re:Can't fault China... by CapeMonkey · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Because Arab nations have veto power by virtue of being on the permanent Security Council. Oh. Wait. They don't. Seriously, how could Arab nations run the United nations? What line of reasoning could even make you think that?

    9. Re:Can't fault China... by op00to · · Score: 2, Funny

      When one drinks the koolaid, these things make a lot more sense.

    10. Re:Can't fault China... by ADRA · · Score: 1

      From their charter: "For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts
      when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
      population, with knowledge of the attack:"

      One soldier murdering another are not grounds for international crime. One soldier killing an armed civilian isn't eitehr. Fire bombing civilians and soldiers would be.

      Get your head out of that as of yours. If you want to punish real criminals transparently (in the eyes of the world), this would be the venue to do it. I'm sure guantanamo works fine for you, but not for the rest of us.

      --
      Bye!
    11. Re:Can't fault China... by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      not cool to anonymously accuse somebody else of your own weakness.

    12. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me you really take seriously an organization under the rules of which Libya can chair a human rights committee?

    13. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      in the eyes of the world

      Well, that's the point. American citizens cannot be held accountable to any other law or tried in any other legal system than their own. I don't see the problem here.

    14. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... stay tuned to fox....

    15. Re:Can't fault China... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's because those standards do not meet our standards. Why the hell should I be subject to another nations laws while in my own country? Ever heard of sovereignty (that spelled right?)

    16. Re:Can't fault China... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      American citizens cannot be held accountable to any other law or tried in any other legal system than their own.

      Are you dense?

      If you murder someone in just about any country, you'll probably end up in a court in that country.

      Non-Americans who commit serious crimes in America frequently appear in an American court.

    17. Re:Can't fault China... by ADRA · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So what you're saying is that Americans can commit genocide, invade anyone without cause, kill innocent children and somehow it isn't an international problem?

      Please do me a favor and read the charter before you spout off about how its eroding your rights.

      http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjou rn al/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf

      --
      Bye!
    18. Re:Can't fault China... by Agret · · Score: 0

      It was easy, all I did was make it look like it was easy to get through one of the openings. But the trick is the big marbles don't fit through the hole.

      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
    19. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Because having a nation in charge that extradites its prisoners to Libya ("extraordinary rendition") is so much better?

      So, you don't think that every nation should get a turn? Fine, what criteria do you want? How about "every nation with a good human rights record" get a good turn. Well, who gets to determine who has a good human rights record? Why, it'd be an international body - yet, with all of the US torture and outsourcing of torture lately, the US would be taken off the list. People like you would probably be opposing that international human rights body, accusing it of anti-American bias. In short, I don't think you'd be happy with the human rights committee - or the UN as a whole, or even the whole world - unless they did exactly what America wants and said.

      Sounds like a particular president that I know of...

    20. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, China's model makes grand changes to the WIFI standard that would force different wifi hardware that is currently being used, so if China differs from what the IEEE wanted then it would make it harder for manufacturers to produce and sell their laptops

    21. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...your conspiracy theory

      Says someone with the name of EnronHaliburton2004....

      Interesting.

    22. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      in the same way as the UN, which is run by the arabs

      Really? Wow, thanks for the information. I'll add it to my list.

      Arabs: Oil cartels, Terrorism, and the UN
      Hispanics: Drugs (Accounts receivable), New Communism
      Blacks: Drugs (Accounts payable), American recruiting for the Arab Terrorism industry
      Jews: Hollywood, the banking system
      Nazis: Fox News
      Illuminati: Congress, NASA
      Aliens: CIA, the Catholic Church.

    23. Re:Can't fault China... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny
      When one drinks the koolaid, these things make a lot more sense.

      Great, another Mac fanatic.

    24. Re:Can't fault China... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      'They'?

      They who? For instance, if Bush signed up for the ICC, would it of become law? No, it would have to pass though Congress, and the Senate.

      I've heard that the vast majority of US soldiers are US citizens, with families in the US. And ALL these people have influence on their Congressmen and Senators.

      You think these people like the idea of an International Criminal Court?

      Not to mention, I don't even think it's Constitutional.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    25. Re:Can't fault China... by mrogers · · Score: 0
      Actually the President can sign treaties without the consent of the Congress or the Senate, and they are binding.
      The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      (Source)
    26. Re:Can't fault China... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was tricky - finding the back side on a ball an all. But then the grownups came up with a good catch 22 solution: DMCA.

    27. Re:Can't fault China... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would go for this joke and just absolutely ruin it. You left out the most important phrase: "It'll be our little secret."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Can't fault China... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1

      "commit genocide, invade anyone without cause, kill innocent children"

      Those are all illegal in the US, as well as growing plants in your backyard. As for other coutries in America, I am not sure.

      Please don't lump the US in with Canada/Mexico/Other Countries.

      The US doesn't invade without cause. You may not agree with the cause, but that does not negate it.

      When did the US commit genocide? Not your definition, but a generally agreed upon example of when the US did this.

    29. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping 'whisper' would convey that.

      NB

    30. Re:Can't fault China... by alatesystems · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Incorrect, check the facts.
      Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
      Source: The Actual Constitution of the United States (Article 2, Section 2)
    31. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ahem* owned.

    32. Re:Can't fault China... by Vengie · · Score: 1

      Jews: Hollywood, the banking system
      Hmm. You forgot that we jews also control the weather. And we gays control the media. Hence, you should also conclude there is a secret cabal of jewish homos that hold all newschannel weatherpersons under constant blackmail, threatning to open our own weather outlets and control the weather. Plus, the gay jewish illuminati members totally fuck with the Mars program.....

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    33. Re:Can't fault China... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      In short, I don't think you'd be happy with the human rights committee - or the UN as a whole, or even the whole world - unless they did exactly what America wants and said.

      You almost got that. Change America to I. If you find two people who agree 100% on everything you can be sure that at least one fails to use his brain. Since I'm not in charge (and honestly I don't want to be) as dictator of the world for life, I have to compromise. I elect people, who sometimes even win. I allow someone to "represent" me, even though we disagree about 95%, because that is democracy.

      I know of no criteria that will solve the problem. I can point out that it is wrong to put Libya in charge of a human rights commission. However that should not be read to mean I have a better solution.

    34. Re:Can't fault China... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm not jewish OR gay. I don't control ANYTHING. :(

    35. Re:Can't fault China... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Well, sort of. I personally cannot as an American, but congress can do all of that. It is only an international issue if other nations choose to make it one. Nations invade each other all the time. (for some definition of all the time) Nations do a lot of other things to control other nations (See Russia/Ukraine). Sometimes it is an internation issue, sometimes it is not.

      I don't have time to read the whole charter and respond to each point. Here is some examples of how I'm concerned it can be abused:

      Genocide means (point b)causing mental harm to a group.

      What is a group? Anything they want it to be, so long as they can find some slight connection. Lawyers are good at finding slim connections to define groups.

      What is mental harm. Lawyers advise clients to always claim back pain after an auto accident because it is easy to win on that based on little proof. Mental harm is also is easy to claim on behalf of someone, but hard to prove.

      Read a little farther and I'm sure you can come up with objections. You seem to have a brain (at least you knew where to find the document), so this shouldn't be hard for you. Now your position that those objections are not something that will be every used is valid. (And I'm sure you can come up with other rebuttals) However make sure you understand the other side before you use it.

      To the US, which is full of people used to lawyers finding loop-holes in the law, this looks like an easy way to attack the US.

    36. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of sovereignty (that spelled right?)

      Oh yeah, that thing that should have prevented you from invading a country for no reason.

    37. Re:Can't fault China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell me you really take seriously a government under the rules of which a logging company can chair an environmental protection committee?

    38. Re:Can't fault China... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Uh, they're only binding if they don't go against the Constitution.

      And yes, the President can sign treaties, but if they're unconstitutional, then they're invalid.

      So, is the ICC constitutional?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  5. awww poor babies by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 0

    whaaaa goo goo ga ga... little baby doesnt get its way it throws a fit... is that what the world has come to... countires pitching small tantrums because they dont get their way... nevermind it being for the greater good...

    --
    Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    1. Re:awww poor babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      whaaaa goo goo ga ga... little baby doesnt get its way it throws a fit... is that what the world has come to... countires pitching small tantrums because they dont get their way... nevermind it being for the greater good...

      Kind of like when the US got up and walked out on the Kyoto treaty.

    2. Re:awww poor babies by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0
      Two words for you:


      Kyoto accords.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:awww poor babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There is a difference between throwing a tantrum and using simple common sense: Kyoto treaty is nothing but a plan to give a financial advantage to the developing world.

    4. Re:awww poor babies by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      thank you i was about to say the same thing...you guys are talking apples and oranges. The Kyoto Accords go a lot deeper than a ISO standerds meeting...much much deeper

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    5. Re:awww poor babies by Alioth · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's how pretty much all international politics is - at best, international politics resembles 8 year olds in the school yard. Unfortunately for those of us who just want to get on with our lives, these particular 8 year olds have nuclear weapons.

    6. Re:awww poor babies by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      what about the ones that invade other countries for no reason? and dont give me "for greater good" argument back..

    7. Re:awww poor babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a few more words:

      UN Resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq

    8. Re:awww poor babies by shintaro · · Score: 1

      Like the US and Kyoto?

  6. Made in... by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps China (or at least as personified by these officials) has forgotten where a lot of electronic equipment is manufactured.

    Why not just take the new standard and profit on our willingness to buy their stuff, as usual?

    Perhaps our dollars don't have the shine they used to?

    1. Re:Made in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China is fully aware of Taiwan.

    2. Re:Made in... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps China (or at least as personified by these officials) has forgotten where a lot of electronic equipment is manufactured.

      Many of the chips in question are manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC. I guess some of them could be made in China at UMC.

      Why not just take the new standard and profit on our willingness to buy their stuff, as usual?

      Because chip manufacturers have no influence over the designers of Wi-Fi chips, which are mostly American companies (Atheros, Broadcom, Marvell, Intel, etc.). So it's not really their stuff.

    3. Re:Made in... by DigitalHammer · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the Chinese government has shown much resistance against products or standards that are patented by foreign companies in the past. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/20/china_unv eils_dvd_killer_video/

      Given China's stubborn stance towards royalty payments to foreign companies and lack of control over the design standards, I'm not surprised that they walked out of the meeting.

    4. Re:Made in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      news...Taiwan is in China...

    5. Re:Made in... by MrWa · · Score: 1
      Many of the chips in question are manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC. I guess some of them could be made in China at UMC.

      UMC is still in Taiwan. They have gotten in trouble for investing in China, if I recall correctly, but they have not opened a fab on the mainland yet.

    6. Re:Made in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an island with it's own government. While political unification with mainland China does seem to be their overall desired path, I don't think one could claim Taiwan to be "in" China, by any means.

      I guess some people also think Peurto Rico is in the USA.

    7. Re:Made in... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      You know, it's funny -- what happens if they manufacture wireless chips with their own standard, and sell them alongside the other gear?

      I mean, if the standard is actually BETTER (more reliable, more secure) perhaps the marketplace will pick it up...?

    8. Re:Made in... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      If it worked for Chairman Bill, why shouldn't it work for Chairman Mao?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  7. Screw your guys, we're staying home! by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's the lovely thing about standards: there are so many to choose from.

    With 2,000,000,000 potential customers, and most of the world's manufacturing capability within two hours' flying time, you don't just get to choose standards, you get to write 'em.

    "It is glorious to be rich! Let a thousand flowers bloom from the barrel of a Pringles can!"

    1. Re:Screw your guys, we're staying home! by thpr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ...you don't just get to choose standards, you get to write 'em.

      As lighthearted as your comment is... that's the scary part of all this. I imagine it terrifies the large communcations and networking firms.

      The catch-22 that so many vendors are facing is to not participate in such a huge market (bad idea) or be forced to partner with a company in China to produce the product locally for China [because WAPI won't be licensed to foreign firms] (also a bad idea). It's worse than a prisoner's dilemma, because you already KNOW that Huawei and others will provide equipment that is "legal" in China... so the ability to "win" by refusing to play (both prisoners remaining silent) is not dependent on your competitors. It is - precisely - zero. Refusing to enter the Chinese market also reduces competition and price pressure in China, allowing local firms an even better base with which to compete with firms in the US and EU.

      This just stinks, in my opinion. It goes right along with China selecting the EVD standard for DVDs. It's playing a market power game... and while it's effective (and just might work in this case), it doesn't make the 'game' any less dangerous for US and EU firms.

    2. Re:Screw your guys, we're staying home! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      IBM clearly thinks that it can make money partnering with Chinese companies. If anyone knows what they're doing these days it's IBM. It is entirely reasonable for China to have their own standards that no one cares about because the [potential] market is so vast. If China can successfully bring more of their population up to the economic level where they can be buying computers and mp3 players, there's no limit to what they can make happen.

      China needs the expertise of American companies to design the devices that are going to bring them into the next century, since they seem to only be capable of copying quality parts and equipment, and making cheap crap. I'm not sure why this is, and maybe it's just related to education and economic status, and is a problem that will fix itself, but in general China has applied more ingenuity to copying other people's equipment (down to reverse-engineering ICs from the part and data sheet, and producing identical parts which then show up in products here in the U.S.)

      It'll be interesting to see how the Lenovo thing works out, though not as interesting as seeing how the whole China thing works out... not least in regards to the strength of our currency (or lack thereof.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Screw your guys, we're staying home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's playing a market power game...

      And how is this different from what the U.S. has been doing since, I don't know, maybe forever?

  8. So... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

    China's being childish because a different scheme is favored for authentication over their scheme... unless their scheme has more merit over another scheme? Anyone know of an site with a side-by-side 802.11i-vs.-ANSI comparison? PS: First Post?

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    1. Re:So... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, 802.11i *IS* ANSI... The Chinese scheme is WAPI.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not require both standards? The only reason I think ISO is giving favor to the Western standard is because it is designed for easy law enforcement circumvention.

    3. Re:So... by mboverload · · Score: 1

      They probably want a backdoor so they can spy on, then torture their citizens.

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wi-fi networks are quite local. So what's the problem with having different crypto systems ? Frankly it's not obvious. Either they want to spy on their citizen, or they don't want some satellites to be able to decrypt the communications. But in this last case, there will be so many networks everywhere that it will be impossible to extract useful information. And they know that. So I guess they want to control the chinese ppl :/

      sad...

    5. Re:So... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Durr... That's what I meant. Teach me to post before I've had my coffee!

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  9. The question is... by Kartoch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does this chinese standard is better than the other one ?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:The question is... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2
      Of course it is...that's why it's being killed.


      Just like FireWire.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:The question is... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      (In case it wasn't immediately apparent, the above post was intended to be humourous, and was meant in no way to be a slur against FireWire, WAPI, or the Chinese.)

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:The question is... by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

      One can hope that it's better than your grammar or else we are all fucked.

    4. Re:The question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this chinese standard is better than the other one ?

      I think I know you. Didn't you work on "Zero Wing"?

  10. WAPI is old by christoofar · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this rant WAPI is "on old technology, performs poorly and is insecure"

    1. Re:WAPI is old by jthayden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boy I wonder why China of all places would be interested in implementing an insecure wireless protocal.

    2. Re:WAPI is old by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "on old technology, performs poorly and is insecure"

      Honestly now, are they talking about wireless technology, or are they talking about the Chinese government?

      Because really, the Chinese government is anything except new, efficient and secure with itself.\

    3. Re:WAPI is old by Daedala · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This article doesn't name names. It doens't analyze anything. It just reports hearsay. Until I see an anlysis of WAPI that someone actually takes responsibility for, and uses actual facts about the standard rather than anonymous sources, I won't accept the notion that of course it's a stupid idea. After all, they had the great example of WEP to see what not to do.

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    4. Re:WAPI is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Korea only old people use WAPI.

    5. Re:WAPI is old by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

      WAPI is "on old technology, performs poorly and is insecure"

      Perhaps that is the point. So they can eaves drop on their dissidents, western governments have tried the same trick. c.f. Echelon/Carnivore/Clipper/ITAR etc. Given the oppressive authoritarian nature of their government it's seems they are even more likely to try the same tricks. The best solution is to just ignore their objections. If they wish to join the information revolution they must learn to play by its rules.

  11. yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    whats the big deal?

    1. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they agree to have all their hardware built in China and provide lucrative kickbacks to the Chinese Army....

      Yeah, that fine print is a bitch.

    2. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      1.2 Billion people is the big deal

    3. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to building the hardware in Texas and providing kick backs to the bush admin via Halliburton?

    4. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South America has 1 billion people. Not too many buy networking hardware though...

    5. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      Wow, 4 posts and already we come to the America bashing. That didn't take long.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    6. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's not bashing America, it's bashing stupid AmericaNs like you. Trace the posts to find the first "basing" and see where it's pointed to.

    7. Re:yeah no company needs 1 billion customers by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Such original and brilliant rhetoric; and the name calling was a nice touch too. You're so cool!

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  12. Not news until we find out why by complexmath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Does China have a valid complaint or not? No one knows yet. Until then, there's nothing to report.

    1. Re:Not news until we find out why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They stormed out at the point that it was decided that all WAPs should be configured with a SSID of "default." China wanted it to be "linksys."

    2. Re:Not news until we find out why by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Their complaint is that they were out-voted. Boo-hoo, they can't establish a totaletarian dictatorship on standards...

    3. Re:Not news until we find out why by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And when the US gets outvoted, it invades a country....

  13. Middle Kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, they are the Middle Kingdom and thus above the rest of us mortals.

    I guess you haven't had much contact with the Chinese - the most blatantly racist nation on Earth?

    1. Re:Middle Kingdom by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, China is incredibly ethnocentric, but then so is Korea and Japan. Its a common trait stemming from such a long history of ethnic homogenity and isolation. I read that it is still very common for blacks to be called "black devils".

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    2. Re:Middle Kingdom by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why shouldn't they be ethnocentric? This is life. Life is lived where you are, so life for you revolves around your country. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just how the world is. Most countries are probably fairly ethocentric on some level, even if they don't openly show it.

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    3. Re:Middle Kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason we shouldn't be enthnocentric and subjegate them with opium.

  14. China Walks Out by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Reminds me of a joke... One day 800 million chinese walk into a bar, buy a drink and then pay up. The bartender asks if they'd like another, the chinese say, "not with these prices which exploit the proletariat and waste the people's agricultural resources." (something like that anyway) But the gist is the whole country is there rather than some representative.

    Remember, China still has a repressive few who are determined to remain in power and if strangling wireless LAN in their own country helps them stay in power one more day, so much the better for them. Not much of a difference between them and the old emperors and such, just exert power differently...

    "We get signal!"
    "No you don't, and off to reeducation camp for you!"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:China Walks Out by lakerdonald · · Score: 0

      In the old days, countries would quibble about land and money and power. Now countries go to war on the basis of internet standards...

    2. Re:China Walks Out by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      In the old days, countries would quibble about land and money and power. Now countries go to war on the basis of internet standards...

      Not too sure about that, but I do feel there's a large degree of pride at stake no matter what is on the table. I think pride more than anything is at the root of the Taiwan agenda. And I've met some mainland chinese who are very proud, in a nationalist sense, of their country. Perhaps a little too much so for my comfort.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:China Walks Out by lakerdonald · · Score: 0

      That was meant as a sarcastic/humourous/satirical/facetious remark.

    4. Re:China Walks Out by rekenner · · Score: 1

      Does communism matter to what you quoted? No.
      China DOES have repressive government. Repressive government =/= Communism. Don't make assumptions on what others think.

    5. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know that, why do you make the argument?

    6. Re:China Walks Out by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ask most (American) people what they think communism is, and if they have any idea at all, it'll be something like totalitarianism.

      That's deliberate. As is the ignorance surrounding the middle east. It's much easier to hate if you don't realise that the people over there are just like you.

      Tonights homework is Duck and Cover : An effective safety zone for your children during global nuclear warfare, or a tool for instilling fear and hate at a young age?

      No matter where you are from, your country will have a pro bias to some countries, and an anti against others. The US seems to be anti almost everyone except a few select nations, and even then all they can do is make (badly informed) jokes about our teeth. ;-)

    7. Re:China Walks Out by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how you think Marxist Communism would produce a state like ancient Athenian republic (which is what I'm assuming you are referring to when you talk of Greece). Athens had rich people and poor people, very definite classes, which was what Marx was opposed to. What Athens had, simply, was direct democracy with no real constitution to limit powers (which is why poor old Socrates was forced to drink some rather nasty tea).

      There was nothing very communistic about Athenian democracy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China and the USSR doesn't/didn't define what Communism is

      They sure as hell did.

      Ask most (American) people what they think communism is, and if they have any idea at all, it'll be something like totalitarianism.

      And they'd be correct. A dictatorship of the proletariat is no different than a dictator of one.

    9. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I've met some mainland chinese who are very proud, in a nationalist sense, of their country. Perhaps a little too much so for my comfort.

      And I've met some mainland Americans who are very proud, in a nationalist sense, of their country. Perhaps a little too much so for my comfort.

      We're all the same, baby.

    10. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dictatorship of the proletariat is no different than a dictator of one.

      Or a dictatorship of the majority. It's only a matter of efficiency. The dictator of one is the most efficient.

    11. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Real" communism is not compatible with human nature and most communes self-destruct because of failure to recognize that. Those communes that are set up around rational systems (and avoid self destruction) are of necessity fairly small - and are absorbed or destroyed from outside.

      So really it doesn't matter much if Stalinist/Maoist Totalitarianism define communism - because those are the only marginally successful implementations of Communism in a post stone age society.

    12. Re:China Walks Out by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      what a bad joke dude...

    13. Re:China Walks Out by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      And I've met some mainland Americans who are very proud, in a nationalist sense, of their country. Perhaps a little too much so for my comfort.

      We're all the same, baby.

      You and I may have descended from apes, but I will not hear one word that the neo-cons have ... they're evolving back into baboons.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    14. Re:China Walks Out by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You do realize that the Chinese government is successfully doing what the former USSR government has failed to do? Allowing (semi)private enterprizes to exist and improving the economy while increasing its influence (by owning some of every enterprise on the party level.)

      This is working in China partially because the Chinese people are hard-workers (is it in the culture?) Where the Chinese will go and build something given the opportunity, the Russian will go and buy more vodka (sorry to say.)

      This is very interesting from sociological point of view - a very strong single-party, single-minded regime that allows economical enterprizes to exist will win against a democracy on the same level field because it does not have to fight an internal battle (in the short term at least.) What will happen in the long term will depend on the specific people in the Chinese government. Either the enterprise spirit will eventually water down the powers held by the government, but it will happen at the point where it will not hurt the country, the way USSR was hurt at the point when there was government control and some people just grabbed what they could and ran, and China will become somewhat more democratic. Or the monopolistic government will start making more and more business mistakes over the years and the bureucracy will crash the government, but with the solid business tier the country will be able to react in a much more fluid way, absorbing the impact and becoming some sort of a new form of government, going away from the dictatorship. This is evolution, not a revolution.

      Interesting, no? How does a government avoid becoming a bloated useless beuraucracy? Just use the firing squad often enough. Once your government officials spent enough time in the office for the Peter law to apply (everyone rises to the level of their own incompetency,) they should be removed from power. And noone wants to be removed from power, so just kill them. Stalin did this, Suvorov did this, Peter the Great was doing something like this. It works.

    15. Re:China Walks Out by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, China still has a repressive few who are determined to remain in power and if strangling wireless LAN in their own country helps them stay in power one more day, so much the better for them.

      Russia tried fast tracking democracy and look where it got them.

      China is trying to make economic development happen first, and they seem to be doing well. I suspect few in the Chinese government have any illusions about the fact that once they have a large, reasonly wealthy middle class, political reforms will have to follow. In fact, that's the way democracy came about in the West as well: first the wealth, then the political freedoms.

    16. Re:China Walks Out by argoff · · Score: 1

      I've seen lots of cases where freedom leads to a strong economic situation, but I have never seen a situation where a strong economic situation leads to freedom. In fact, it tends to lead to just the opposite - as society becomes more prosperous, their populations tend to become more demanding, causing the government to take more strong measures to stay in controll. Germany had a nice and industrial economy in 1939 too, we all know where that led.

    17. Re:China Walks Out by voisine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because all the communist countries we know of *are* totalitarian. China is still totalitarian, but the improvements in their economy and standard of living are due directly to the moves they've made *away* from a communist economic system. Communism is simply the removal of individual economic freedom with the intention of improving the economic situation for the whole. If you have freedom to pursue personal economic advantage, you might produce more value (money being a representation of value) than your neighbor, and that wouldn't be fair.

    18. Re:China Walks Out by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Read a book dope. Germany was nearly BANKRUPT at the beginning of WW2. They had stimulated the economy using gold reserves which were about to run out, leaving them no ability to pay for the large army/navy/airforce they had built. The economy under Hitler was fantastic, and it would have continued to be fantastic for about another four months until the gold ran out, then it would have been a very devistating depression, with huge inflation as the government moved to fiat currency to pay for things.

      It's amazing that people continue to repeat the same crap over and over without ever wondering if it is factual. "Hitler did wonders for the economy, but was bad for killing the Jews." -- This statement is FALSE, Hitler was bad at running everything except the propaganda machine (run for him) and he also killed millions of innocent people.

      I think the problem is that people get they're "information" from TV. Guess what guys, TV only gives you the sensation of being informed, the data density of TV is so low that you could watch it all day every day for a year and learn about as much as a trip to the library for an afternoon. The history channel is neat, it's cool to see the footage and keep an eye out for your grandpa or whatever, but honestly the "history" part is a bunch of shit.

    19. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's because all the communist countries we know of *are* totalitarian"

      That's just not true. What usually happens is that a communist government is democratically elected and then the USA funds local terrorists to overthrow them in order to install a capitalist friendly dictator. Some good examples are Allende being overthrown by Pinochet, resulting in decades of totalitarian rule; Indonesia is another good example, where Sukarno was overthrown by Suharto, again funded and supported militarily by the US.

      A contemporary example if you need one is President Aristide of Haiti being kidnapped by the US military for having the audacity of being re-elected President after already suffering a US backed coup some years previous. Most people have forgotten about this however, what with it being just last year and everything.

    20. Re:China Walks Out by argoff · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Hitler made poor economic decisions that had short term benefits, but were disasterous for the long term. (like many governments tend to do, including the USA eg 79 inflation, and China today with currency) But, then it seems, to keep it from hitting the fan, he had to abuse his power and take extremely abusive political measures.

      Well it still proves my point that China, without political accountability to freedoms is dangerous.

      I didn't know what the details were, all I knew was that germany had an economic base that was large enough to make a powerfull war machine, but this economic foundation didn't guarantee anything about freedom or peace.

    21. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allende wasn't communist. He was a left leaning Socialist. Ariside was sending thugs out to kidnap and kill his opponents. He wasn't a communist either. That leaves you with one potential case of What usually happens... One case is not a trend.

      One the other side, we have a 70+ year history of totalitarianism by Lenin -> Stalin -> Brezhnev -> etc. in Russia and their well documented ruthless repression in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They didn't come to power democratically. Same thing in China under Mao.

    22. Re:China Walks Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Allende wasn't communist.

      You're right, he wasn't. But that didn't stop the USA from labelling them as such and using it as an excuse to overthrow them.

      "He was a left leaning Socialist."

      In the eyes of USA foreign policy, is there a difference?

      "Ariside was sending thugs out to kidnap and kill his opponents."

      Yes, similar to how the Iraqi government sends out "thugs" (the American military) to kidnap and kill their opponents.

      "He wasn't a communist either."

      See above.

    23. Re:China Walks Out by Domini · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with your teeth?

      -grin-

    24. Re:China Walks Out by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with your teeth?

      Nothing, that's the problem. EVERYONE in the UK gets completely free dental treatment to the age of 16, or for as long as they remain in education. Meanwhile, on the US side of the pond, about half the nation don't even have basic medical coverage, never mind dental. Sure, in Calif, NY and Hollywood (and therefore TV), Americans appear to have good teeth. Go to trailervile and it's an entirely different story! :-)

    25. Re:China Walks Out by Domini · · Score: 1

      (Let's chance the offtopic) :)

      I've been to Britain long ago, and somehow I have the recollection of Fluoride being put in the drinking water... but perhaps I'm confusing it with someplace else...

      I think the Americans just plain eat crap... hence the cause of bad breath, weight problems and American spelling (had to blame something!).

      PS: I'm from South Africa... thus mostly speak British English.

    26. Re:China Walks Out by cortana · · Score: 1

      For readers who haven't seen "Duck and Cover", check it out at http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?colle ction=prelinger&collectionid=19069. Brought to you by the miracle of the Internet!

  15. Re:Who cares about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless that page has specs on how to build a bomb vest does it really have anything to do with technology?

  16. China may have walked out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but an hour later, they were hungry for meeting again.

    1. Re:China may have walked out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean they wokked out? ;)

  17. China walks out... by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Funny
    From TFA:

    Following China's walkout, the resulting new coastal areas in central Asia are expected to provide new economic opportunities to the formerly isolated, landlocked region. A brief panic gripped the people of Japan, as China blocked out the sun for several hours as it stepped across the island nation. Geologists and the international community at large are eagerly waiting to see where and how the newly independent continent decides to settle. It was last seen striding across the South Pacific in a brisk huff towards the Isthmus of Panama. Panamanian officials have cautioned China to be careful as the newly mobile landmass will not fit through the canal and would need to carefully step over the fragile strip of land, which could be easily crushed into the seabed by an errant footstep. Representatives of the Chinese government could not be reached for comment.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  18. Ok... so we won't participate in wireless security by christoofar · · Score: 1

    if (__mylocation == LOCAL_RICE_PATTY ||
    LOCAL_SHANGHAI || LOCAL_BEIGING)
    {
    return WAPI_SECURITY_ENABLED;
    } else {
    return STANDARD_SECURITY;
    }

  19. Boo-Fucking-Hoo by dspisak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Somebody call the WHAAAAmbulance for crybaby China, stat!

  20. Re:Who cares about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you would have said the same thing about concentration camps and the equipment the guards wore.

  21. You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Informative

    Repeat after me... WAPI is Crappy.

    WAPI is insecure, doesn't scale, late and undeployable.

    If you read the specs and had any involvement in the 802.11i process, you will understand what an amature piece of work WAPI is. It was compounded with the blatant IP grab that China was trying to make with WAPI (you have to send China your RTL, they *THEY* can integrate it into your chip - yeah right).

    The only way you can effectively write 802.11 specifications for anything as intertwined with the base spec is to go to the 802 meetings and propose your scheme. From 802, down through 802.11 and the 802.11 task groups, the documents are heavily cross dependent and part of the purpose of these massive meetings is to make sure that all the bits fit together and are kept up to date with respect to each other.

    Trying to write an 802.11i replacement in isolation is doomed to failure and fail is exactly what they did.

    Now they are forum shopping. ISO rubber stamps the 802 documents because 802 has a long history of succesful open standards development. Whining 'it's not fair! They won't take our spec but they will take the IEEE specs' is disingenuous bullshit and they know it. There is a basic quality threshold you have to pass first.

    --
    Evil people are out to get you.
    1. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Daedala · · Score: 2
      ISO rubber stamps the 802 documents because 802 has a long history of succesful open standards development. Whining 'it's not fair! They won't take our spec but they will take the IEEE specs' is disingenuous bullshit and they know it. There is a basic quality threshold you have to pass first.

      Like the one WEP passed? If that's what rubber-stamping the IEEE gets us, then maybe China is right to whine about fairness. WEP wasn't just bad, it was moronic.

      China does have good cryptographers. They beat SHA-1. IEEE has screwed up cryptography multiple times. Maybe WAPI is worse than 802.11i, maybe it's not. Is there a decent analysis that backs up this assertion?

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    2. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. So you want the same people who came up with WEP to get a second chance?
      2. Why did almost no vendor release updated drivers to fix WEP? Why did they rather want you to buy new WPA equipment? And now 802.11x?
      3. Perhaps the WEP vulnerabilities were not expected to be found so soon (think NSA)...

    3. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Analysis:
      It's being proposed by a government that spies on its own peoples communications (openly).

      Need I say more?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Megamote · · Score: 1

      "WAPI is insecure, doesn't scale, late and undeployable." I feel that way sometimes too. Learn to speak Chinese: Are you harboring a fugitive- Hu Yu Hai Ding

    5. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by eggboard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Chinese distrust 802.11i because it includes as a mandatory element (and the strongest method of encryption) a 128-bit AES key that the NSA doesn't certify as highest security. They also wanted both authentication and encryption in a single standard for some reason.

      Now, the flip side is that 802.11i is great, and so is 802.1X, and the Chinese government clearly want a back door in their standard to allow simple eavesdropping. I cannot believe that WAPI doesn't have a back door. If it did, there would be no reason not to open it to scrutiny.

      If there's a back door, someone else will discover it and WAPI will be rendered useless, anyway.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    6. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Informative

      If its bit strength on the link cipher you're worried about then define a stronger link cipher. If it's the authentication method then define a new EAP method.

      802.11i is extensible like that. It it only the base modes for interoperability that are mandated. Support for vendor proprietary additions are included and are distinguised using the standard IEEE OUI.

      WAPI throws the whole lot out (they delete clause 8 and start over) and replaces it with something broken.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    7. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by eggboard · · Score: 1

      Very smart point. But I think the Chinese are concerned that most people would use just the 128-bit AES key length that's mandatory. I don't say it's reasonable, but it's part of the justification they're employing.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    8. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is different from the rest of the world how?

    9. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      So the time and place to fix this would have been around 2 years ago in the IEEE 802.11i meetings.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    10. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that there is any real link between the chinese's concern and their justification.

      --
      I do security
    11. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by eggboard · · Score: 1

      I don't like WAPI nor do I think it's a good standard. But the Chinese have long held a desire to have their own self-determination on technology and not be beholden to patents (even ones they refuse to enforce) or manufacturing they don't control.

      It doesn't matter whether we think it's reasonable or not; I strongly believe both the political side of the government and scientists within the government think that the U.S. and other nations are just as likely to use their technology domination to steal secrets (business or otherwise) as we think they are of ours.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    12. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is kind of a given that secure encrypted wireless networks would be perceived as a serious threat to a totalitarian state. It will make it hard for them to censor everything and to spot insurrection.

      Centralized ISP's where all the network traffic is going through a small number of choke points are much better suited to totalitarian states.

      But if a totalitarian state concedes wireless is here to stay they are going to try to mandate one with a backdoor known to the state so they can with some difficulty eavedrop on wireless traffic and networks. They can't listen to it all but the threat that they can monitor it will slow down its use for activities frowned upon by the state.

      You could argue well dissidents could just use strong encryption on top of back doored wireless standard but the state can establish that volunteer use of strong encryption is a sign of disloyalty. They can't complain if strong encryption is a standard part of the network protocol, therefor they need to insure the encryption in the standard protocol is easily breeched.

      Its an interesting intellectual exercise for anti establishment geeks to contemplate what could be done with wireless networks to create an alternate Internet free of the yoke of government/coprate regulation and oppression. For example if trusted computing comes to be and you have to run a trusted platform to gain access to the network, it it worth the price to relinquish control of your computer, or would it be better to move to a Pirate's Net using wireless and free of government and corporate control.

      Could you use a mesh and mirroring to create a wireless network that spanned an entire large nation. Obviously the number of hops to get from one side to the other would be murder so networks would bias to local communities and mirroring more than today's Internet. Realtime games would pretty much have to play locally due to the bad ping times.

      This is just the first challenge, could you create an Internet replacement using wireless more or less as it is today.

      The harder challenge, could you create a robust and survivable Pirate's Net if your government was actively trying to stamp it out.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by ezeri · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, because the other standard isn't being pushed by a government, but by a group whos members are large international corperations who care more about making money than producing crapy standards so they can spy on people.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    14. Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The US isnt proposing WAPI.

  22. What is WAPI anyway? by Daedala · · Score: 3, Informative
    Now that's security theater...

    Here is a paper that describes the WAPI standard. As a cryptodilettante, damned if I know if it's any good.

    --
    What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    1. Re:What is WAPI anyway? by thomasa · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the paper:

      "The only secret part of the protocol is the symmetric encryption algorithm used between a wireless device and the access point, after both of them have been authenticated." and "The regulation also requires that any company who develops products that use encryption to keep the encryption algorithm a secret from anyone who is not authorized to know the algorithm"


      To have a secret algorithm is a bit untrustworthy!
      Would you trust your secrets to a secret Chinese algorithm? It might be good but clearly the Chinese can break it.

    2. Re:What is WAPI anyway? by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1
      To have a secret algorithm is a bit untrustworthy! Would you trust your secrets to a secret Chinese algorithm? It might be good but clearly the Chinese can break it.

      I'd have difficulty trusting this ancient chinese secret. It'd probably have a backdoor by using they key "Calgon Laundry Detergent".

    3. Re:What is WAPI anyway? by Woy · · Score: 1

      If you must keep your algorithm a secret, you don't have an algorithm.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  23. Wireless and Optical Media by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Between this and the Chinese push for EVD it sounds like China is tired of paying royalties on technology they manufacture to foreign technology companies. Remember with one law they can include any standard they want in 75% percent of the electronics you buy. If they really want to push EVDs or WAPI they will not have much of a problem. I mean manufacturer's will have to choose between employing two standards in all products, or going with whatever China wants. Ubiquity makes for a de-facto standard.

    1. Re:Wireless and Optical Media by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      AES, CCM and TKIP is free of royalties. I don't think the same can be said of WAPI, even if you could make it work.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    2. Re:Wireless and Optical Media by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You overlook the fact that if China meddles in international business to the degree of requiring them by fiat to adopt something, the likely result is a lot of companies deciding that maybe Thailand of Vietnam don't look so bad after all.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:Wireless and Optical Media by bani · · Score: 1

      malaysia and indonesia look much more promising. they are already well equipped for high tech.

      thailand is nearly there, while vietnam is still struggling with the legacy of a corrupt communist system. they have no technological sector to speak of, and will not for some time. china is much more modern in that respect.

    4. Re:Wireless and Optical Media by Quino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the fact that China is a huuuuge market and companies are salivating, excuse me, *SALIVATING*, at being allowed to cater to this massive market is usually forgotten in these discussions.

      It's nowhere near as easy as you seem to think: China has a powerful chip to bargain with. You want to sell there? (and you do, that's a given), you play ball with the Chinese. From everything I've seen, I'd say the Chinese are not behaving like wilting flowers; they're playing hardball because they can afford to.

      When Thailand or Vietnam become as important a market, then maybe you can make that comparison, because China is much more than just another 3rd world country that cheaply manufactures our stuff.

      In fact, I believe the fact that China just walked out shows that they know they have a lot of companies by the short and curlies, *not* the other way around.

      Does no one remember how the world automotive industry (AFAIK, *all* major automotive companies) were elbowing each other to be the first to bow down to this market? These were sweet deals for the Chinese, with a transfer of know how and IP (after a short time). The computer deals recently reported were equally sweet for the Chinese.

      I think we in the West tend to seriously overstate our own position in today's world.

      Oh, and it's not clear who'd be damaged more by an embargo of Chinese goods (say if the US Gov. were to act), the Chinese economy or the American one. That's not much of an option for the US (the other thing I hear thrown around a lot around here). It's something neither country wants, and it's something that either country can threaten the other with (I understand it as a sort of economic M.A.D.)

      Maybe in the US we're just so not used to having to deal with a country on a more even footing that it's hard to understand we're simply not calling all the shots with regards to China anymore.

    5. Re:Wireless and Optical Media by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Add to that the tendency of the Chinese to take a long view of things. Sometimes measured in generations.

  24. Re:Who cares about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is, this is a news site for technology and the technology world, not world news. We can all agree that people dieing is a bad thing, but that's not why people come here.

  25. Privacy under communism? by TheOldFart · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Isn't that sort of oxymoronic? In a communist country how does one fit "privacy" and/or "secure" encryption? This is obviously for public use. The government can adopt whatever security standards they dam please for their own communications.

    1. Re:Privacy under communism? by winkydink · · Score: 1

      That's why they would like a nice, loosey-goosey, not-so-secure standard. Give people the appearance of security.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Privacy under communism? by rokzy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      no, it isn't "sort of oxymoronic". but you *are*
      moronic in terms of your understanding of communism.

    3. Re:Privacy under communism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it isn't "sort of oxymoronic". but you *are*
      moronic in terms of your understanding of communism.


      Hahaha, this is an excellent post.

      Mod parent (+1, Unintentionally Funny).

      Don't worry, we're all laughing with you. Really.

    4. Re:Privacy under communism? by TheOldFart · · Score: 0, Redundant


      Could you please enlighten us with your communistic wisdom, oh lord of almighty intelligence? I was under the impression that within a communist state, property is non existent. How do you fit secure communications within this context?

  26. N64 owned. by dauthur · · Score: 1

    This, coming from the country who banned Hitman?

    Jeez, this is like when I didn't win and Goldeneye 007. I throw the controller and strangle my teammate.

  27. China wants a piece of the action by klui · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that China wants to capitalize on the fact that they are considered a big potential market by the West. If they are insignificant, who would care if they want to use WAPI? It is greed by Western companies that have allowed China to do this--"hey, if I don't give in, some other company will and I cannot afford to lose potential market share in a country like China". The fact that they went to the ISO to give WAPI a fast-track course on standardization says out loud that as soon as WAPI is standardized, China will require WAPI.

  28. i do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now we have to wait a few hours and call China, but hang up when they answer. If they pull that caller id crap, we have to say it was an accident. Then we'll run into them at some conference in a week and man, that shit is just awkward.

  29. Re:Who cares about this? by agraupe · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about??? If you move out of your house, which wasn't ever yours, but you lived there, and then came back a few years later, you should be able to expect that you can come in and claim it for yourself again. And if you're feeling really generous, why shouldn't you be able to leave them in a small, walled-off room, wherein you can come in and take their possessions on a regular basis?

  30. no, our dollar sucks by doormat · · Score: 1

    The dollars valuation has deteriorated pretty dramatically in the past months.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:no, our dollar sucks by jm92956n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The dollars valuation has deteriorated pretty dramatically in the past months.

      Except that China's currency is tied to the US dollar. This has been a major point of contention for the Bush administration, as well as the US domestic manufacturing sector. Even as the dollar falls, Chinese imports become no less or no more expensive because the exchange rate has stayed the same.

      A weak dollar helps increase American exports to Europe, for instance, because Europeans can now get more for their euro. When the Chinese decide to float their currency on an open exchange, the price of their currency will likely rise, and their products will therefore become more expensive in America. This will in turn decrease exports, and that will hurt the Chinese manufacturing sector. And this is why the Chinese government is so reluctant to do this (although once their economy is more stabilized, it would make a lot more sense.

      --
      An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
  31. Re:Who cares about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And by what right can the jews claim the land?

    "Oh, we've got our recorded history proving our claim". Yeah, right. A history written by you.

    You left. You lost it. Deal with it.

  32. Who is China, anyway? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is China some communications company I've never heard of? Or is the government in talks with the ISO board?

    1. Re:Who is China, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China Walks Out Of Wireless LAN Security Talks Feb. 24, 2005
      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
      PRINT THIS ARTICLE
      DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WRITE TO AN EDITOR

      China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoritism.
      By Patrick Mannion
      EE Times

      MANHASSET, N.Y. -- China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoring the IEEE's 802.11i ANSI-certified wireless LAN security scheme over its own controverisal proposal, EE Times has learned.

      The gambit came after China's Wireless Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security scheme was withdrawn and placed on a slower track by the ISO. This week's meeting in Sulzbach, Germany, included the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 WG1 working group created to resolve the dispute.

      China initially agreed last year to refrain from making its WAPI security scheme mandatory for wireless LAN equipment in China. It then approached ISO with a fast-track submission in an effort to make WAPI an international security standard. The 802.11i proposal is also on the fast-track for ISO approval, possibly by April. Until this week, the ISO group was focused on whether or not both 802.11i and WAPI should be cemented as enhanced -- but optional -- security standards.

      However, sources said tempers flared when China's original fast-track submission, designated 1N7506 of China National Standard GB15629.11 (WAPI), was withdrawn from consideration. It was replaced by a revised submission, designated 6N12687, that removed the China proposal from the organization's fast-track approval process.

      The withdrawal was based on a procedural issue, according to a source, and the clock for approval was reset indefinitely to a later submission. The result is a delay in moving the WAPI proposal through ISO.

      Sources said China walked out specifially over disputes centering on which members have authority to seek a withdrawal and the timing of the request. Chinese delegates also accused ISO of favoring the IEEE 802.11i proposal.

      It remains unclear for now whether the dispute will affect the current suspension of China's original law requiring mandatory implementation of WAPI. The IEEE is currently drafting a formal response, but declined to comment.

    2. Re:Who is China, anyway? by kwerle · · Score: 1

      China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoritism.
      By Patrick Mannion
      EE Times


      Just because Mannion is being a jackass and implying that the entire nation of china should be viewed as one upset entity doesn't mean that the submitters to /. or the editors should behave the same way.

  33. the chinese may be communist... by another+one+rides+th · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...but you are evil. I saw what you did to Carley Bruccia, and how you put Terri Schaivo into vegetable stew, you sick evil bastard. What were you thinking? You freakin' raped the Lindbergh baby, and then sold him to Dr. Mengela for testing. You, my friend, are the Jew Bastard who framed Lee Harvey Oswald for the Kennedy assasinations, and paid off Jack Ruby. And then you paid off James Earl Ray

    --
    cos you couldn't stand a successful nigger.
  34. kyoto by WiFiBro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ok let's off topic again. Kyoto is not the final solution to climate change. But at the moment it is the only international thing going on to try and reduce the effects of CO2 reduction. The fact that the US is using what was it, something like 80% of the worlds resources, should make it be one of the first to act here. Even if they think Kyoto is a communist or islamic complot (or whatever Orwellian enemy will be invented next), they should at least show commitment to the future and take action to reduce energy use. However it chooses to again play the card of refuting what's obvious. Anyway one day soon the whole economy will collapse with the current tax policy and expected oil price increase. Oh boy, we the rest of the world will have to brew our own cola, how will we miss the US. By the way, the USA did not only not sign Kyoto, but also played mean politics to block the Carthagena Biosafety Protocol, tries to impose GMO's on countries that do not want them, is actively blocking the international court of justice by even threatening to bloody invade The Hague when a US citizen is held there.

  35. Re:Who cares about this? by agraupe · · Score: 0

    Wow... I honestly do not think I could have made my first post more sarcastic, but you still missed it. Now, being straight: I completely agree with you. The Arabs never had a problem with the Jews already living in Arabia. If the US didn't keep spending money to keep Israel supplied with weapons (done, of course, to get votes and money from US Jews), several million Arabs would have wiped Israel off the face of the planet, and rightfully so.

  36. I hope so. by game+kid · · Score: 1
    Does this chinese standard is better than the other one ?

    I hope so, or WiFi there will have no chance to survive make their time.

    Cats jokes aside, that'll be hard to prove if some of the "Security" involves cautious Communist censorship.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  37. Re:Who cares about this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    It's pretty funny. Are you even aware as to why Israel was founded? Are you aware that Palestine, while having Arabs there, was never an Arab province. It was a Roman province, then Byzantine, then Ottoman, and then British, before the Brits partitioned between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli Jews. And before we get into a "the Brits had no right" line, ponder that the Arabs had pretty much been doing the same thing until the Turks came along and beat the hell out of them, the Byzantines and anybody else that got in their way.

    But however you slice it, there hadn't been any local rule of the region for two thousand years. The Palestinians, if they can restrain the lunatics who think it's real keen and holy to strap nail bombs to themselves and blow up nightclubs, will actually be the first of their people to actually run their own affairs since Rome took over.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  38. Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by ahbi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no Global body that makes laws!
    There is no international legislature (the UN ain't it), there is no international monarch. They are the two groups that make laws. When there is a 1:1 correlation between cause & effect, if you don't have the cause (international legislature) you can't have the effect (international law).
    So despite the lies that a bandied about, international law doesn't exist.

    What people often mean when they say "international law" is "treaties," but they usually have some agenda they are hiding behind and intentionally misleading you. I assume that since God is dead and humans can no longer appeal to the moral authority of God that they feel the need to appeal the moral authority of some other fictitious being. In this case, international law (aka global standards).

    Now on to treaties.
    Treaties are just agreements between governments to enact laws. They aren't law by themselves. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to make treaties, but Congress gets to ratify and then make laws based upon them.
    So, the US & AU make a treaty to do W, X & Y
    When it gets run through the AU Parliament they don't like W. So they pass a law that allows for V, X & Y. That law is only enforceable in AU. It is an imperfect implementation of the treaty, but an implementation nonetheless. It is like a standard that is implemented but not fully.
    Same thing happens in the US Congress. But they pass law with X, Y & Z.

    Now you have 2 national laws. A AU law. A US law. You don't have an international law. Why? No international legislature remember.
    You can sue in AU under the AU law, but not the US law. So in AU you are entitled to V, X & Y.
    You can sue in US under the US law, but not the AU law. So in US you are entitled to Z, X & Y.
    No where can you sue under the treaty. You never are entitled to W. Because te treaty (which entitled you to W) isn't a law, just an agreement to make a law.
    You can't sue in NZ under either the AU or US laws. Because NZ, has neither of these laws and their courts don't care about US or AU laws.
    Now we mis-use the term "treaty" to refer to both the AU & US laws collectively, but neither of them is really the treaty as negotiated by the PM/President.

    Hey what about these international courts?
    Well, they are really arbitration bodies.
    They have no legal power beyond what the individual nations give them.
    The UK may pass a law giving ICC judgments full effect, but that is due to the UK ceding sovereignty to the ICC, not because the ICC is inherently morally superior or because of some international law (which doesn't exist remember).
    Now the US doesn't agree to cede its sovereignty to the ICC. So the ICC has no effect in the US.

    Why no power beyond what the individual nations give them?
    It comes down to a concept called jurisdiction.
    See, ultimately might does make right. Not moral correctness, but the right to do something is ultimately based upon your ability to enforce that right.
    To enforce a court order to, for example, the ability to forcibly imprison someone, take their personal and real property from them, you need an army and a police system. Nations have these things. NGO bodies don't. Even the UN has no standing military. It relies on borrowing the military of its member nations.
    If the ICC has a judgement it wants enforced in the UK, it needs to get the approval of the UK government to use the UK police force to do that. Alone, the ICC is impotent.

    Ultimately, every country acts unilaterally. Every country implements their own version of treaties. Every country decides whether or not to cede sovereignty to an international arbitration board.

    1. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Treaties ratified by Congress have full legal status under the US Constitution. They are part of the law of your land.

    2. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by tomarseneault · · Score: 1

      I think your wrong about "International Law" not existing. Treaties are between countries and/or groups of countries but the UN does have an international court and some folks have been tried on violation of International law (genocide being one of them) the problem is that they don't have any enforcement arm. For the most part anyone can opt out, as the US has done on numours occations.

    3. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Lately it seems that treaties are just too hard and require the agreement of that pesky body known as the congress. Now we have these things called "agreements". For example you have the "North American Trade Agreement" NAFTA. It's not a treaty and does need congressional agreement but it's kind of like a treaty anyway.

      Anyway you are right. In the end it's whoever has the bigger bombs does whatever they want. There is no such thing as civilization when it comes to international treaties or agreements. It's the wild west. The US has pulled out lots of treaties and of course refuses to sign others. We do because we can. If anybody objects we certainly have no compunction against killing a few hundred thousand of them to make a point or two.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by m50d · · Score: 1

      If that were the case how could these treaties e.g. Kyoto be binding on countries which haven't ratified them (US)?

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      God, I'm tired of this rant. I've seen it several times in different places.

      Look, international law exists. My great-uncle made quite a handsome living teaching the subject for almost 40 years at the U of MN. When he died, his estate donated almost 10,000 books on the subject to the U's law library.

      No, it is NOT the same as law under national governments. So what? Get over it.

    6. Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Lucas has made a living and hundreds of books have been written about Star Wars, but that doesn't mean Jedi Knights exist.

  39. MANHASSET, NY by suso · · Score: 1

    Just like on the old music stands:

    MAN|HAS|SET in shit

  40. He's got the whole world... by theendlessnow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And now the Chinese! C'mon all you Chinese. "Yo eee ya goshee-ee eee ha ya eehee...

  41. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow I had no idea that China throwing a temper-tantrum and designing a shitty spec somehow implies something about America or Americans, as though China and the US are the only two countries on the god damned planet. What an insightful and eye-opening logic you have.

  42. Communism always fails by ccmay · · Score: 3, Insightful
    China and the USSR doesn't/didn't define what Communism is (I'm not talking about Marxism).

    Congratulations! You are being a tedious bore, and simultaneously insulting the memory of the hundreds of millions killed by Communism. Nice trick. Too bad your insight is not original to you, but has been an article of faith among marginalized leftists for fifty years.

    Ask most (American) people what they think communism is, and if they have any idea at all, it'll be something like totalitarianism.

    Americans know damn good and well what Communism is. Any high school student can tell you "From each according to abilities, to each according to needs," and any decently educated college student can tell you about the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you have any understanding of human nature, that's all you need to know about Communism and why it is doomed.

    If there is any firm lesson from the history of the last century, it is that Communist ideals, always and everywhere, fail in practice. This is due to immutable laws of human nature and behavior. It can only be artificially maintained at the point of a gun, and then only for a limited time. Wherever and whenever it has been tried, it has lead to tyranny, mass slaughter, famine, and misery. Wherever and whenever it is tried in the future, the result will be the same.

    Of course, none of this made the least impression on the sheltered twits of the academic Left, who insist against all evidence that "real" Communism has not yet been tried. If only, if only, they whine, everybody would just be nice little Communists and accept their lot in life "according to their needs", then Utopia would arrive and all our problems would be solved.

    I think that if the economic ideals of communism (everyone contributes, everyone receives) were put into place in a political system, you'd have something like ancient Greece.

    I think that if my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.

    What you are describing has never happened and never will. Quit deluding yourself and join the reality-based community.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:Communism always fails by idlake · · Score: 1

      This is due to immutable laws of human nature and behavior.

      Human nature and behavior are highly malleable. In fact, religious communities in the US (darlings of the political right), demonstrate exactly the kind of altruism and sharing that you claim is contrary to human nature. The difference, of course, is that in the US, people have a choice: they can behave like selfish jerks or they can choose to be altruistic. That's a good thing.

      In the long run, current US consumerism is as unsustainable as Soviet style communism was. We need to figure out how to preserve the ability of people to choose freely but make them want to choose altruistically. It can be done, just not as long as we leave control over the media to people who abuse them for their own financial interests. Because, make no mistake about it, what comes out of your television in the US is more skillfully manipulative and propagandistic than anything the USSR ever managed to produce.

    2. Re:Communism always fails by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "is that Communist ideals, always and everywhere, fail in practice"

      Like most unfounded generalizations, thats not really true.

      They only thing thats failed recently was Stalinism which was really the only thing resembling Communism that was tried on a large scale in the last century and it was really more Authoritarian Socialism. Trotsky advocated a substantially more democratic form of communism, abhorred Stalin's repressive tendencies, but lost a power struggle and his life. If Trotsky had won, the last century would have been a much different place. All that was proved in China and Russia in the last century is that dictators can be ruthless and brutal, both Stalin and Mao were, but so were Hitler, and Mussolini, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran...this list goes on for a while so for brevity I'll stop here.

      Before humankind developed agriculture and started economies man lived under "primitive communism". It worked quite well and was substantially less devastating to our planet than capitalism has proven to be. It was the social form most native american tribes practiced and worked quite well until it encountered imperialist capitalism.

      A few other examples of communism that doesn't really fit your mold were the earliest Christians which is somewhat ironic. They did in many instances live in communes and if you actually read Christ's teaching without bias he is in most instances advocating Communism and abandonment of personal property. Some community's like the Amish and Mennonite's live in communes today for this reason, its the closest economic model to the teachings of Christ. Their communes aren't perfect but many work quite well. The problem with modern Christian's are most of them like their wealth and property so they turn a blind eye to Christ's teachings on the subject.

      Its a little hard to quantify what system China runs under these days but it appears to mostly be a Stalinist dictatorship with a mix of capitalist economics though its economy is so heavily controlled by the government it recently resembles Fascism more than Communism or Capitalism. China does present a problem with your generalization because it was for a very long time Stalinist Communism and its Communist party is still very much intact and now very successful though I grant you its sure not pure communism anymore.

      Cuba certainly isn't perfect but it does get by and it has a few things over the U.S. In particular, quality health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it like in the U.S., and higher education for everyone based on merit and not based on who can afford it. Its certainly not a wealthy country but it does get buy which is amazing considering it has to endure economic boycott from its largest neighbor and has been under various forms of attack from the U.S. since its inception.

      I'll probably get flamed for it but Gates and Balmer were right when they said it. The Linux community is in most respects a stateless communist community where everyone is contributing to the common good and no one is exacting property rights in return. It is an example of a true virtual commune that seems to work very well.

      "the memory of the hundreds of millions killed by Communism"

      Nice attempt to say:

      Communism = killing millions of people

      There isn't really any correlation. For example:

      Fascism = killing millions of people too

      Capitalism = killing millions of people too

      Americans murdered millions of native American's by various means and generally practiced ethnic cleansing to push them out of their ancestral homes, and on to lands that were for the most part desolate and encouraged them to wither away and die. Many were killed in the process either directly or through famine and disease as Americans destroyed their primitive communes and their way of life in the name of profit and imperialism, the term used was "Manifest Destiny".

      American's inflicted slavery on millions of people plucked out of Africa ag

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:Communism always fails by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      by ccmay (116316)

      What, was username aynrand taken?

      I kid, I kid. Just the "point of a gun" thing tickled the back of my brain.

    4. Re:Communism always fails by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's true or not but supposedly when Freud read Marx he is said to have muttered "it will never work, people are just not that good".

      Communism will never work because human beings are not by nature generous and kind. Communism relies on a misconceived notion of what humans are like.

      Capitalism on the other hand relies on the evil nature of all humans. All humans are greedy and selfish. Capitalism tries to set peoples greed against each other to try and achieve some end.

      Capitalism is satanism, it's the codification into a philosophy and practice the seven deadly sins. It works brilliantly becasue we are all evil as Jesus would have defined evil.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:Communism always fails by karnal · · Score: 1

      Just the "point of a gun" thing tickled the back of my brain.

      Me too. I just can't figure out how to get this pencil far enough up my nose to fnlaksdfq.wg

      --
      Karnal
    6. Re:Communism always fails by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Like most unfounded generalizations, thats not really true."

      Good - let's continue with yours.
      "Before humankind developed agriculture and started economies man lived under "primitive communism". It worked quite well and was substantially less devastating to our planet than capitalism has proven to be. It was the social form most native american tribes practiced and worked quite well until it encountered imperialist capitalism."

      Wrong. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." You are applying a political system formulated for 19th century industrial production to hunter gatherer societies, and it just doesn't fit. Hunters didn't own their own spears and stone tools? You know this? I think the word you are looking for is "egalitarian," not "communistic."

      "and if you actually read Christ's teaching without bias he is in most instances advocating Communism and abandonment of personal property. Some community's like the Amish and Mennonite's live in communes today for this reason, its the closest economic model to the teachings of Christ."

      WTF? WTFF? First off, the Mennonites and Amish certainly don't live in communes. They own their farms and property, and make damned good money at it. There's a joke in Pennsylvania: Who are the second richest people in PA? The Mennonites; they make their money chaufferring the Amish - the richest people in PA." The Amish believe fully in private property and wealth; they just believe it is sinful to show it off. As for Christ's teachings, again, you are confusing a disregard for materialism with communism. Christ was trying to tell us that we should not let worldly things get in the way of following a path to redemption. Hell of a stretch to convert that to advocating a style of communism.

      Here's another good one. At the start of the post, you say "They only thing thats failed recently was Stalinism which was really the only thing resembling Communism that was tried on a large scale in the last century and it was really more Authoritarian Socialism." But then, in reference to China, you say "China does present a problem with your generalization because it was for a very long time Stalinist Communism and its Communist party is still very much intact and now very successful though I grant you its sure not pure communism anymore." Well, make up your mind - is Stalinism Communism or not. I would agree that it is not, but you seem so intent on tryuing to show there is some form of "communism" working in the world you include China under the designation. You must be joking; they may call themselve Communists, but they hardly ever act (or acted) like communists.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  43. Noone has said it, but maybe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has anyone considered that the reason that the Chinese were mandating a wireless encryption standard with such force would be specficially because it has been designed with a back-door of some form that allows easy identification of keys?

    Take all the facts into consideration, this country has more human rights violations than most can keep track of, and habitually shuts down any means by which the people can read unauthorized material, often resulting in illegal, indefinate jail sentances. All that, for reading CNN?

    The fact the Chinese are happy about encryption is nothing more than a single loud beacon that it's not strong enough. If its safe enough to hide Falun Gong meetings or whatever else, you can bet your testicles (Lets face it, everyone who reads this site has them, if only in jars) that it's worth use in commerce.

    If it werent, a small dasiy chain of wireless networks could flood Bejing with "unauthorized" material in days, destroying the virtue of the Great Firewall of China.

    1. Re:Noone has said it, but maybe.... by bugbeak · · Score: 1

      Oooh, more human rights violations than most can keep track of. Now why does Guantanamo Bay come to mind when you mention that?

  44. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 1

    i agree. the reason you have so many fanboy americans. is because there is no country like us..and no one else makes any sense = )and by the way im cuban - american so you can go play the redneck card somewhere else

    --
    Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
  45. Backdoor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That China wanted WAPI that much probably means they can easily crack it. The last thing they want is to not be able to eavesdrop on their citizens. Just ask the Falun Gong.

  46. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You rock!

  47. China isn't really a communist country by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they would probably be the first sucessful communist government to succeed in producing a government with a stable economy.

    Classic, theoretical communism implies there will be a dissolution of the central gov't into a form of anarchism. Soviet communism (as we currently see communism) bans private ownership of property, and the gov't regulates all operation of all material production. China's economic system currently has "rich" private owners of various enterprises, and looks to divest the gov't of almost all industries. There is even an entrepeneur class that extends beyond Hong Kong. The catch is that almost all the owners of the really important industries happen to also be the highest ranked gov't officials, that the gov't can arbitrarily come down on any private owner at any time, and there are still industries which haven't been privatized by the central gov't.

    But once the bulk of industries stop being owned and managed by the central gov't, it stops being communism. What to call it is another dilemna. You could argue its evolving to a western socialist state, or merely into an oligarchy; my problem with China is that it appears to me to be evolving into a fascist gov't, similar to what was seen in post-WWI Germany and Italy.

    Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions. Perhaps if one phrased the question as "What would have Fascist Germany have been like without Hitler? Lets say, a Fidel Castro or Kim Il Sung", and you might start to appreciate the potential for problems. Even worse, one will still be looking at China as a communist country, when it will be a significantly more efficient economy and better operated. Then kick in 1+ billion people and 20% of their nationalistic, military aged males not able to marry. Interesting times ahead.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    1. Re:China isn't really a communist country by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, we do have some interesting times ahead. Chinas sheer numbers may be the reason their way of life is sucessful, i am cuban american and have seen first hand what my parants home country has become due to Fidel's Communist Dictatorship... there are so many different spins on Communisim its hard to keep up. Your right though they seem to be evolving to a western socialist state if so. god help us... the fidel castros and small communist in the world are a small nusiance. If China in the future does get "too big for its britches" We may meet a power never before delt with in human history. and if that happens ... god help us all!

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    2. Re:China isn't really a communist country by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your right though they seem to be evolving to a western socialist state if so. god help us...

      I never said *I* beleived they were evolving into a western-style socialist state. That requires decentralization of political power to the masses. China's central committee has shown no such predisposition to do so.

      If China in the future does get "too big for its britches" We may meet a power never before delt with in human history.

      Who says China will get "too big for its britches"? Perhaps its the United States that has become "too big for its britches". Perhaps the political, economic, and military capital we are expending in Iraq will make it impossible for us to rise to the China challenge in ten to twenty years. Heck, Rome, Britain, USSR, they are all empires we can learn lessons from, if we were intellectually capable of doing so. As for China becoming a international behemoth, its not the first time something like this has happened in history, it won't be the last. As for God, I don't think you should be praying for him to deliver us from China...

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    3. Re:China isn't really a communist country by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      You are talking out your ass. Did you learn all your "facts" about marxism from web discussion boards? Marx does not discuss a dissolution of the central government into a form of anarchism. Neither does Lenin. If there is another source of "classic theory" please fill me in.

      Here is the (uninteresting) difference between Marx's socialism and Russia's. Marx said that a society has to go through a period of industrialization and reach a state of capitalism FIRST, then the inhuman forces of capitalism would force the workers to sieze the factories. Lenin beleived that Russia could skip this part and go straight to dictatorship of the prol. However, it is never really made clear why you would need to go to socialism if you aren't responding to the excesses of capitalism.

      But like I said, you're just talking out your ass anyway, so screw off.

      Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions.

      Is this irony? I'm not sure, but I think head-up-ass-man bemoaning the lack of understanding of entire continents HAS to be some kind of irony, or the word has no meaning.

      But mostly you're an idiot.

    4. Re:China isn't really a communist country by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1
      You are talking out your ass. Did you learn all your "facts" about marxism from web discussion boards? Marx does not discuss a dissolution of the central government into a form of anarchism. Neither does Lenin.

      From Wikipedia:
      (From the Communism vs Anarchism section)
      Both systems want to eliminate private as well as state ownership of the means of production in order to achieve a truly free and democratic society where people have control, not an elite of private or state owners. However, unlike most communists, they do not believe that a stage where the state exists owning and controlling the means of production is needed or desirable between capitalism and the society they want to establish. They wish to implement their system without going through a period of "state socialism" where the state owns and controls the means of production.

      (from the Marxism vs Leninism section)
      According to Marxism, the class struggle within capitalism will eventually lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism. Socialism, in turn, will result in the gradual fading of social classes (as the means of production are made public property), which will lead to the final stage of human society - communism.

      The important point here is that Communism and Anarchism all aim to achieve the same endstate. The difference is Marxist Communists beleive there needs to be a centralized system (called State Socialism) in place first to transistion from capitalist entity to local anarchism.

      The notable difference here is that I absorbed the gist of the philosophies meaning, while you on the other hand, memorized complete tracts without even understanding what you had read. To me, that is the definition of an idiot.

      Also note, you did not contest the most basic premise of my post, which was that China is abandoning communist ideology and changing its economic system, and thus the original poster would be incorrect in asserting that China was going to become the first economically sucessful Communist state. Which makes you a pointless idiot.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    5. Re:China isn't really a communist country by L1nux_L0ser83 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      you must be a liberal democrat huh? figures

      --
      Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
    6. Re:China isn't really a communist country by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Not so fast, hotshot.

      While I appriciate you drudging up evidence that kinda sortof almost sounds somewhat like what you claimed in your first post, you are still missing the point.

      To answer the last part, if your point was that china is changing economic systems then you must really suck at making points. Your post was semi-coherent rambling at best. Read a book.

  48. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither the IEEE nor ANSI is American.

    As an EE, I'm pretty sure most of the devices using this protocol will be designed by Indians in the US, Japanese in Japan, or Americans in the US.

    They will then be manufactured by Austrialians or Taiwanese in Taiwan, or Asians in the US.

    It will then be placed on circuit boards by Chinese in China, or Malaysians in Malaysia.

  49. Who is anti? Must be you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it pro-Americanism, or did the image of China walking out of talks not mean a thing to you?

    Don't cry over it; China will still be contracted to mass-produce the wireless standards the rest of the world designs and agrees upon.

    1. Re:Who is anti? Must be you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the wireless standards the rest of the world designs...

      The rest of the world designs almost everything, that being technology, for China anyway.

  50. "immutable" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, yeah, immutable. But genetic engineering is going to get there, quite possibly this century.

    1. Re:"immutable" by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > Now, yeah, immutable. But genetic engineering is going
      > to get there, quite possibly this century.

      "We are the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

  51. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 1
    To anyone who reads your inferiority-complex-ridden post, it looks more like you're busy trying to convince yourself that America is not Supreme.

    Slashdot is not a pro-American forum. If you were paying attention, you would realize that America is not criticizing the rest of the world -- the rest of the world is criticizing the Chinese government.

    I wanted to mod you down, but I don't currently have any mod points. Sorry.

    --
    ...just my 2 gil.
  52. China dislikes patent royalties by r00t · · Score: 1

    The DVD thing was all about patent royalties.
    Probably this is more of the same.

    We have a bad habit of writing patented stuff
    into standards. China will help us fix this.
    In past times China would just ignore royalties,
    but they're trying to make nice with the WTO and
    all... so they need to make patent-free standards.

    1. Re:China dislikes patent royalties by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So far, EVD has been a flop. I tend to agree with you that a lot of China's moves like this are about abusive patent regimes, but I'm no longer so hopeful about them making much of a difference.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  53. Re:Who cares about this? by agraupe · · Score: 1
    Whether the Palestinians/Arabs controlled the area directly is immaterial. During the high time of British colonialism, many places had their affairs controlled by the British Empire, and the Roman Empire before that. What I object to is the fact that, when they chose someone to hand power off to, they decided to give it to people who had no right to take it, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. It was based on the fact that, not only do the Jews require their own state, but they require it to be where many of them lived in past history. Naturally, the people who already lived there would have to be pushed aside. And, of course, since it is a Jewish state, Palestinians (Christian and Muslim) wouldn't be given power to control, despite the fact that the Israeli government ruled them. I think, although it is safe to say that the British weren't perfect, they were a great deal better than the Israelis when it came to the welfare of the Palestinian people.

    Also, although killing civilians is wrong, it's not like the Palestinians are in any position to fight the Israeli army (supported by the US). They had land that should have been theirs (whether it was before or not) taken away from them, at which time they began to receive treatment as second class citizens, despite having a reasonable claim to rule the land (certainly moreso than a Zionist state created by Britian on, more or less, a whim). Wouldn't you fight to take it back in any way you could?

    Also, allow me to point out that one of the reasons that non-Jews wanted the state of Israel to be created was that Jesus would only come back if Jews controlled the Holy Land. How's that for irrational foreign policy? At least Bush gets oil out of the Iraq war...

  54. Oh well by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Not that I trust Washington all that much more, but I'm glad I won't be using an "encryption" standard that Beijing wants its own people to use. Seriously, if they want it so bad, there has to be something wrong with it, some sort of back door to let them crack down on dissidents.

  55. Re:Who cares about this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    You missed the part where those residents of Palestine never did form a state, at least not one since the Romans walked in there. No state during Roman times, no state during Byzantine times, no state during Ottoman times, no state during British times.

    The Jews were promised a state in Palestine for their aid in WWI. Whether you like it or not, Britain, like the Ottomans, Byzantines and Romans before them, were calling the shots.

    If this bothers you so much, I take it you also would like to see the Copts get their country back from Muslim overlords.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  56. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

    " Neither the IEEE nor ANSI is American."

    And what does the "A" in "ANSI" stand for again?

  57. you guys just proved my words =) (idiots) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rednecks are american-fanboys and pansies? I don't give a fuk what race you are. You are still a fan boy idiot.

  58. You're wrong and proved wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is not a pro-American forum, I agree, but the way things are moderated is a clear indictment of the members!!!!! Please read carefully next time.

  59. Who is anti? Must be you...I THINK NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China can do what they please. If they want to withdraw let them. You fanboys consistently fail to see the hypocrisy of condemning China yet never a word spoken about America withdrawing elsewhere.

  60. You're paranoid and a hypocrite(DIEBOLD ANYONE???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who has the Patriot Act and allowed a company (Diebold?) to develop a machine in which the source code is secret or at least locked away from the public, a company headed by the incumbent's relative(?)

  61. REPLY TO A PARANOID PERSON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is stopping ammendments to the design being made? Surely it can be proven EASY TO CRACK, like most American Software has been crackable. So much for your high standards.

    1. Re:REPLY TO A PARANOID PERSON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is stopping ammendments to the design being made? Surely it can be proven EASY TO CRACK, like most American Software has been crackable. So much for your high standards.

      Of course it's EASY TO CRACK. There's a backdoor in it somewhere.

      Proving it is a little difficult, since part of the algorithm is contractually kept secret! That's how they're implementing security- with lawyers.

  62. communist ... by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    it's not that communist ... most "capitalist" countries have free medical care. In China you have to pay.

    Political totalitarianism, yes;socialist economic system, no.

  63. Don't go blaming Jesus for Christians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would have horrified him.

  64. Re:Who cares about this? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    This misses the fact that Israel comprises only 20% of Palestine Most of Palestine is and has been since 1948 under Arab rule. It's called Jordan.

    Arabs in Israel may in some respects be second class citizens,but they're much better off than Jews under Arab rule, and in fact, they are better off than Arabs under Arab rule. In Israel Arabs have the vote. In Arab countries, they either don't have the vote at all or it doesn't mean much. Israel, by the way, was the first country to give Arab WOMEN the vote. In Israel Arabs can freely form their own political parties or join others, and they can be, and are, elected to the Knesset. In Israel there are real civil liberties for Arabs as well as Jews, enforced by the courts. In case after case, Arabs have WON cases in the Israeli courts. The Supreme Court of Israel has on numerous occasions over-ruled the government in favor of Arabs.

  65. Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with being a polite, honest, hard working, hourly wage employee from the southern US? Hmmm. Could it be the ones complaining are still in some educational system and have yet to work full time jobs or raised north of the Mason-Dixon line and taught everyone below the line is incapable of decisions? Either way is very prejudical and most users of Slashdot should know better.

  66. Currency Peg != Real Exchange Rate by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even as the dollar falls, Chinese imports become no less or no more expensive because the exchange rate has stayed the same.

    Don't confuse a currency peg with the purchasing power. A currency peg does not mean that the value of imports/exports remains fixed. You are also assuming that the Dollar and Renminbi are the only two currencies out there. I'll try to explain because it's not entirely intuitive. (and I'll try to keep it simple because it isn't - hopefully I've gotten my cash flows right...)

    If the US buys goods from China, capital (money) *has* to flow into China. There is now a smaller supply of capital (money) in the US and a larger money supply in China. When the money supply gets larger, the value of a unit of currency (absent government action) falls.

    The next time China wants to buy (import) some goods, they have all this extra supply of dollars. Excess supply reduces the real value of their currency so they can buy less goods/services. Having a "cheap" currency makes exports cheaper but imports more expensive.

    Notice that exchange rates haven't even been mentioned yet. With a floating currency, the Renminbi (China's currency) would devalue in the Foreign Exchange (FX) markets. But to keep this from happening, China does something clever. First, they do not permit the Renminbi to be traded in Foreign Exchange markets keeping the supply low. They maintain the exact exchange rate by buying/selling US Bonds (dollars but in the future) with the dollars they got earlier from selling goods.

    One problem is that this can lead to speculation. (Read about George Soros and the Bank of England for details) To avoid this problem China keeps a HUGE foreign reserve (over $600 billion and rising) to keep speculators at bay, even though it is widely recognized that China is enjoying a 20-40% advantage in exports. Since China's economy is export driven, they aren't about to change that suddenly either. Yes, they will have to adjust the peg to keep inflation in check but it's going to happen gradually. I'm getting aside however.

    The point is, that a currency peg does NOT keep the prices of goods between the US and China constant. The US can't keep printing dollars and selling them to China forever without inflation occuring. Likewise China can't keep selling goods to the US for increasingly more plentiful (and thus less valuable in the world market - remember there are other countries besides the US and China) dollars.

  67. fuckem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To hell with them. Let them live in their own miserable world if they dont want to listen to the rest of the world.

  68. Precisely by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The most valuable thing for monitoring someone is something they believe to be secure, but you can break. If they think they are at risk of being monitored/overheard, they are much more likely to be careful/deceptive/secretive. However, if they believe that they are secure and that you can't know what they are doing, they are very likely to be very unguarded.

    So if you want to know what they are doing, you want them to have the illusion of security. Encryption that you can break would be right up that alley. They believe their data to be encrypted and thus unreadable, so are inclined to store whatever they like in it. You can then decrypt it and see what they are up to.

    The last thing you want is something that really is secure. If they can encrypt something and you can't get at it, then you are screwed. This goes double for something that is in common usage. If normal people use nothing, then someone using something good sets off a red flag and you can check it out. However if everyone is using good encryption, you have no idea who to check out, and no way to find out.

    So yes, if you want to monitor people, the false appearance of security is just what you need.

  69. Forget the Chinese part by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't trust crypto that is secret, period. For everything I'm aware of short of a one time pad (and even that sort of) you don't prove it to be strong, you prove it to be not weak. Ok sounds like a silly language game but here's what I mean:

    A proof something is strong would mean you could conduct a single test that would prove that an algorithm didn't have any flaws. That test would be all that's needed. It'd get redone a number of times to ensure there were no errors in testing, but if it passed, you'd know it's good.

    Well, can't do that. What you can do, and do in reality, is try over and over to break it. You have all kinds of experts back away at an algorithm and see if they can crack it. When nobody can, and when they do all sorts of mathematical tests showing that probably it can't be broken, you feel confident in calling it strong.

    There's a reason why it took so long for Rijndael to become AES. It had to undergo a lot of testing (past what it already had) before FIPS was convinced that yes, it really was secure. It wasn't proved in one magic test, rather the continual failures to break it were seen as a mounting amount of evidence that, indeed no break is possible.

    So you never, ever, trust an encryption that uses a secret method. If it hasn't been tested by the world mathematical and cryptographic communities, it isn't worth its shit. For all you know there could be a gaping hole that even the developers don't know about, but will be discovered soon. You only ever use tested, reviewed, public crypto.

    Hell, for the reason of testing, some peopel still recommend the use of 3DES instead of AES. Why? Well though AES is superior in the long term, since it'll be harder to crack brute force, it just don't have the history 3DES does. There has been a couple of decades of DES usage, with no breaks. Thus you can pretty confidently say there will be no breaks, until computers are of sufficient power to brute force 3DES, you are safe, and that's going to be a while. AES is almost certianly as good or better, but still, there's not that history of proof, it's the new kid.

    So regardless you your trust for a particular nation, don't ever trust secret crypto. EVen if the intent isn't ot have it breakable, it very well could be.

  70. China learns the MSFT method... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    of business monopolies - "embrace and extend"!

    There were several older /. articles about how
    Intel's new Cetrino chip would NOT use China's
    WAPI security paradigm for WiFi. China has been
    protecting their IP in this regard - only Chinese
    companies are permitted to sub-license the WAPI
    IP. So, China, arguably one of the biggest
    offenders in regards to OPIP (Other People's IP),
    is now using their market share to make their own
    standards to generate royalties - what a concept!

    Their original claims that Western WiFi security
    models were flawed (well, we know that, right?)
    as their justification for espousing their very
    own security standard. Is WAPI a better standard?
    I cannot answer that question, but it could be.
    (But I also cannot discount the possibility that
    they have also created their own "backdoors" into
    the protocol stack.)

    Between China's internal market share (100%) and
    their share of global manufacturing for WiFi (as
    much as 50%), they may well be able to enforce
    their own security standard on the rest of the
    world. I suspect that if this issue escalates
    up to the WTO, the Chinese will win the argument.

    One might hope, however, that the Chinese do not
    follow the Microsoft "model of business practice"
    that has so recently emerged in the news...

  71. Re:Can't fault China... Nothing new with others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many cases where countries set their own standard. Remember TV standard btwn US/Japan and Europe? How about HDTV standard between Japan and almost the rest of the world? How about measurement standards? It is all because of their own interest.

    The only problem here is that it is tied to business of making money, not whether some country should follow standard or not.

    China is playing a game. It would be interesting to see how the rest of the world plays out this game. Maybe some increased export taxes and limiting imports here and there.

  72. NAFTA is a Treaty by beakburke · · Score: 1

    It WAS ratified by congress back during the 1990s and signed by Clinton. It is a treaty, not just an agreement.

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    1. Re:NAFTA is a Treaty by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Nafta is not a treaty, it was passed by a simple majority.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  73. A few doubts, questions... by EMIce · · Score: 1
    If the ICC has a judgement it wants enforced in the UK, it needs to get the approval of the UK government to use the UK police force to do that. Alone, the ICC is impotent.

    Ok, so if the ICC is impotent without the help of a nation's own lawmakers and police, then how is that nation ceding sovereignty by agreeing to it? I mean if the ICC asked for something unreasonable, couldn't a country's leaders simply say no? Is there anything in the ICC treaty that says that it can forcibly render judgements inside one member country, using borrowed militaries from other member countries? Under the ICC, if a country refuses to comply with a request for extradition, will that country's wishes be honored if the judged were to step into another ICC country that supported the extradition? Just how gung-ho can the ICC and its members get - could they swoop into a non-ICC country with borrowed military to force an extradition? And just what sort of crimes is the ICC allowed to prosecute under the proposed treaty?

    Your argument falls strongly on the side against the ICC, but a few key issues seem to be glossed over, which makes me suspicious. Just how much sovereignty would be lost? I would expect these sorts of issues to be clarified in the treaty, and if they haven't been, then that should be a cause for alarm. Can anyone clarify?
  74. do anyone know why chinese Walks Out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please be technical,not political
    from chinese report:
    chinese wapi was treated unfair,the rules have been broken many times.
    At first ISO JTC1(JOINT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1) canceled wapi, although ISO internatinal meeting agreed that chinese wapi could be submitted.Later JTC1 apologied for its wrong.Then chinese experts were refused by USA goverment to enter USA to join ISO international meetings.
    At same time one another wi-fi standard has been prompted into vote period,while chinese wapi has to be waiting for discussed.
    So chinese has to Walks Out of Wireless LAN Security Talks

  75. Re:Who cares about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arabs in Israel may in some respects be second class citizens,but they're much better off than Jews under Arab rule, and in fact, they are better off than Arabs under Arab rule...

    I think you already know that is just a lousy, half-assed apologist argument for Israel taking over Palestine. One can draw a comparison between Arabs in Israel and slaves (as they were) in the US.

  76. [OT] Re:China Walks Out by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Is the quote in your sig yours or someone else's?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:[OT] Re:China Walks Out by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Is the quote in your sig yours or someone else's?

      Nah, it's just me, but I'm sure I'm not the first to express that sentiment!!

  77. Re:Who cares about this? by agraupe · · Score: 1
    Umm... I believe I said this before, but, if I didn't, I will say it here: Jews under Arab rule were fine, before Israel came in and started screwing things up. The Jews who had lived in Arabia for thousands of years had (relatively) few problems. It was the influx of Israeli Jews, and the subsequent subjugation of the Arabs/Palestinians that caused the problem.

    Also, I think it would be good for you to realize that basic human rights, and standard of living, mean more than the right to vote.

  78. Remembering the 1970's by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    The next time China wants to buy (import) some goods, they have all this extra supply of dollars.

    Like, for example, petroleum:)

    This American is expecting some serious stagflation, where the price of almost everything, including credit, will increase.

    The only price that will not increase in the U.S. is that of labor.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  79. Re:Who cares about this? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Arabs in Israel have far more than just the right to vote. They have "basic human rights", such as a real legal system, which does not exist in countries like Saudi Arabia. In Israel, in addition to the right to vote, Arab women are allowed to drive cars, dress as they wish to, leave the country without the permission of their male guardian, and walk about alone. In Saudi Arabia they aren't. It simply isn't the case that Arabs in Israel have a "useless" right to vote but lack other basic human rights.

    The idea that Arab mistreatment of Jews began only as a result of the creation of Israel is a myth, due in part to the fact that overall Jews were treated better by Arabs than by Christians. That just shows how badly the Christians behaved, not how well the Muslims behaved.

    In some Arab countries at some times the situation of Jews was not too bad, but Jews have been second-class citizens in virtually Arab regimes and badly mistreated much of the time. Under Islamic law, Jews are required to pay Jizya "tribute", a special tax not levied on Muslims. Construction of new synagogues is not permitted. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia today the open practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden and Saudi citizens must be Muslims. A Muslim man can marry a Jewish woman, but a Jewish man cannot marry a Muslim woman. Jews cannot testify in court. Jews were required to wear distinctive clothing and in most countries were restricted in where they could live and forced to live in ghettoes.(here is one of many summaries of the status of non-Muslims under Islamic law, with extensive quotations from Muslim sources.) There are numerous examples of mass murders of Jews in Arab countries long before 1948, such as the extermination of the 120,000 Jews of Fez, Morocco in 1146. Other massacres took place in Granada (Spain, under Moorish rule) in 1066, Libya in 1785, and Algeria in 1805, 1815, and 1830, to mention only a few.