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 The gambit came after China's Wireless Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security scheme was withdrawn and placed on a slower track by the ISO."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."

62 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. 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."
  2. 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 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?

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

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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)
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.
  6. 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 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.
  7. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by selfabuse · · Score: 5, Funny

    the Chinese?

  8. 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."

  9. 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!
  10. 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 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. ;-)

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

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

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

  12. 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.
  13. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by DigitalHammer · · Score: 2, Interesting
  14. 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

  15. 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 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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 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

    2. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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!
  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

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

    You left out chinese food.

  24. 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?

  25. 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.

  26. 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?"

  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.

  30. 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 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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!
  33. 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.

  34. 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
  35. 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?

  36. 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.

  37. 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.