Slashdot Mirror


China Frustrated In Encryption Talks

mikesd81 writes "According to an AP article, the Chinese are pushing for the encryption standard called WAPI. It's not going so well, as the majority of countries are taking the IEEE standard 802.11i. From the article: 'An international dispute over a wireless computing standard took a bitter turn this past week with the Chinese delegation walking out of a global meeting to discuss the technology. The delegation's walkout from Wednesday's opening of a two-day meeting in the Czech Republic escalated an already rancorous struggle by China to gain international acceptance for its homegrown encryption technology known as WAPI. It follows Chinese accusations that a U.S.-based standards body used underhanded tactics to prevent global approval of WAPI.'"

60 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by damburger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't it possible the Chinese could be pushing an encryption standard because they know a flaw in it they can exploit?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by prefect42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the US is too lovely and Christian to do the same?

      --

      jh

    2. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Tom+Womack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is entirely conceivable, made more so by the enormous Chinese reticence to publish the SMS4 encryption algorithm they're using and to open it to international review.

      AES versus a Chinese government-approved algorithm which you can only get a specification for by agreeing to partner with one of eleven Chinese firms is not a difficult decision.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by ronanbear · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Too paranoid is sorta an oxymoron on subjects like these.

      In fairness, the Chinese could have a legitimate reason to want their own encryption standard: they own the IP on it. Down the road there could be quite large licensing costs on 802.11n devices. Since this would be an area where the chinese would have the same cost base (for export) it would have the effect of making chinese router exporters less competitive relatively speaking. They would both be funding their rivals and any cost savings they could make in manufacturing would make up a smaller proportion of the cost of the device.

      The actual effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the encryption might be as irrelevant as it is in many standards conflicts.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    4. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Uh...licensing costs? They just steal it. It's standard operating procedure. Seriously.

      Just this weekend, I was at the local expo at my city here in China (I'm an expat). I open up their little guide magazine that comes with the gift bag and city map. Inside, I find content ripped off directly from my own website (I run the local English-language city guide). It's stuff that I wrote, and the freaking government copied it. Of course, there was no use complaining - what am I going to do, sue?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by WiJO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Chinese care about IP when it's their IP. They give tacit approval to those who pirate others intellectual property, but they will not stand for anyone taking theirs.

    6. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have to legitimately pay for licenses on anything they manufacture and import into the US. The grandparent poster's theory is that they want to give their router manufacturers a competitive advantage, because otherwise they have to pay the same license fee as everyone else and can't undercut the competition as much.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's got nothing to do with the US being better than China - the Chinese delegation is trying to portray it as a national issue, but actually it's about open standards. 802.11i is a published, peer-reviewed standard based on published, peer-reviewed encryption algorithms. In fact the driving force behind 802.11i is the flaws that were found in 802.11b by people outside the IEEE. If 802.11b had been a closed-book standard like WAPI, those flaws would still have existed but they might never have been made public.

    8. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be naive: just because the Chinese don't play by the rules domestically says nothing about whether they will expect other people to play by them with regards to their IP.

      I fully expect that if their product was made the standard, and some Western nation started ripping it off without paying the licensing fees, the PRC would throw a full-on diplomatic/economic hissy fit. In exchange for royalties, they would agree to consider, in principle, someday, perhaps soon, to appoint a minister to draft a paper on the creation of a committee to enforce and respect other nation's IP within the Chinese domestic market. Or they'd make some noises and arrest some (preferably Western) person for making bootleg DVDs, and then forget about it until the next time trade negotiations roll around.

      That's how they do business. Seems to be working for them, though.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    9. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by wrook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just want to point out:

      It's not stealing, it's infringing.

      And it may not even be infringing because China is not a member of the Berne convention. They do not have copyright in the way that western countries do. I'm not overly familiar with Chinese laws, so I don't know if what they do is illegal. But I suspect not.

      As an expat in a foreign country, you should be aware that there are foreign laws.

    10. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My GOD, but you sound like Jeffry Rowland's 'the Englishman'. I'm having difficulty taking you seriously.

      I think this particular sentiment is hilarious in its nature. We have a population and land mass at least as big as any european country - per state. Yes. Our country has problems. It comes from having to manage a LOT more counrty than yours does. So yeah, you provincial fuck, shove it up your ass.

      As for thinking how other countries should be run - well, not so much. We suggest capitalist democracy, as that tends to place control, at least in the early stages, in the hands of the citizenry. No, I don't exactly trust a communist government. I'll deal with a socialist government; at least the government's just redistributing resources at that point, but I'm not a fan of 'the government owns everything'. Absolute power and all.

      Can't run our own? Been doing it for over 200 years, and despite our issues, are still the number one economic force in the world. I'm not saying we're doing a spectacular job, but honestly, being the best country in the world is like being the valedictorian of summer school.

      Police state? Yeah. You're clever. No, seriously, what police state? The one in which we have standards formed by the IEEE? 'cos last I checked, the 'I' stood for 'International'. Not that the wireless standard we use is in any way related to ourpolice statiness.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    11. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Put some misteaks in your website just to embarass them.

    12. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by Threni · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Too paranoid is sorta an oxymoron on subjects like these.

      Uh..it's not, unless you can somehow demonstrate that "too" and "paranoid" are in some way contradictory.

    13. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't license WAPI.

      WAPI is only avaliable for Chinese manufactures.

      In trying to make WAPI the international standard for Wireless Encryption, China is trying to position itself as the defacto manufacturer for all wireless devices, software and/or hardware.

      This is not going to work.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    14. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the I stands for "Institute", as in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    15. Re:Maybe I'm too paranoid, but... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      As for thinking how other countries should be run - well, not so much. We suggest capitalist democracy

      You've got a century of installing and propping up dictators to live down. Recall Pinochet? Diem? Marcos? The Shah? Against that you've got Japan and Germany, but it's a mixed bag.

  2. It boils down to... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...who can crack whose encryption.

    The Chinese want their encryption to be the standard so that they can use their backdoor.

    The US wants its encryption to be the standard so they can use their backdoor.

    1. Re:It boils down to... by lurvdrum · · Score: 2, Funny

      In which case all one has to do to be secure is to encrypt using the Chinese standard, then re-encrypt using the US standard. I can't see the Chinese and the US sharing their backdoors!

    2. Re:It boils down to... by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On what basis are European governments more trustworthy in this regard than the Chinese or US governments?

      It is never a good idea to trust technology supplied to you by people with a vested interest in spying on you.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    3. Re:It boils down to... by klmth · · Score: 4, Informative

      The algorithm selected for AES was originally called Rijndael, and was developed by two Belgian cryptographers.

    4. Re:It boils down to... by ynohoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The level of independence of the member states helps. Since they don't trust each other, they are more likely to come up with an acceptable standard. While there are reasonable levels of co-operation between their respective security services, there is no top level organisation comparable with the NSA or the Chinese equivelent.

    5. Re:It boils down to... by hengist · · Score: 4, Informative
      The I in IEEE stands for International.

      It stands for Institute.

  3. No current implementation? by LinuxGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From Wikipedia:
    The WAPI standard requires the use of a symmetric encryption algorithm[1], SMS4, which was declassified in January 2006. The standard and its cryptographic implementation remain unpublished.


    So the Chinese are pushing for a standard that no one can currently verify as being secure and then they get angry?
    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:No current implementation? by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and, uh, symmetric?

      For quite a few applications, that's enough to deep six SMS4 right there.

      Presuming an area full of sniffers, is there much doubt as to the safer choice between published asymmetric and unpublished symmetric?

      It's nice that people worry so much about them getting into a snit & walking out of a meeting. I mean, it's not like anyone could just go ahead & make decisions without their input, could they?

    2. Re:No current implementation? by execute85 · · Score: 2, Informative

      AES is symmetric too (as was DES before it). Although asymmetric is "stronger", it is very slow. So usually you use asymmetric encryption to negotiate a symmetric key for the communication session. This is what SSL does and it's considered secure (in 128 bit symmetric mode).

    3. Re:No current implementation? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. And I would argue with the idea that asymmetric ciphers are inherently "stronger". In the end, the strength is in the algorithm used combined with the key size chosen. The two models exist because they fill different roles, not because one is inherently better than the other.

  4. wireless encryption by 56ker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are already at least two wireless encryption formats I can think of. I don't see why adding a third is a problem. As China's economy is very much export-driven I can see how they'd be frustrated if the US attempted to thwart them getting their standard adopted as an international one.

    1. Re:wireless encryption by LinuxGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See my message above yours. The Standard has not been published after being declassified in January 2006. No published code or theory of operation is available to you, me or 6 billion other people to verify that it is secure or that the spec may be secure but the reference source code may have serious bugs that effect the security. Maybe now you can "...see why adding a third is a problem..." and China knows very well why the standard is being rejected by other intelligent nations right now. It dosen't mean that it can't be a standard in the future, just not right now.

      China also seems to be in love with the idea of the central server verifing the security between the client and AP. Centralized key serving scares me even when the implementation is known to be secure. The key servers in China will be controlled by whom?

      --

      Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  5. censorship by kdougherty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not trying to be negative, especially towards China... However, I would never accept a security concept from any government that filters and censors their country's internet. Seems like an oxymoron to me.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
    1. Re:censorship by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about one which monitors it's citizens telephone calls, or insists that it's ISP's hand over surfing details? I don't trust the Chinese either, but they're not the only villains on this stage.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    2. Re:censorship by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't trust the Chinese either, but they're not the only villains on this stage.

      That's kind of like saying because I've played catch with a baseball, I should be judged among the NY Yannkees.

      Even if you add up all the villainy of the U.S. government over the last 55 years -- COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, NSA eavesdropping, and virtually everything the Bush administration has proposed, it still doesn't come close to the Chinese level of villainy.

      Even if Tiananmen Sqaure was the only oppressive, murderous thing the Chinese have ever done -- and it isn't -- they would still be in a category of oppression and dictatorship that has only Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany as peers.

      The thing that frustrates me the most about the Bush Administration's "War on Freedom" isn't so much the invasion of privacy or the possible usurption of the constitution (although they are infuriating), it's the global and internal notion that we now have achieved some kind of oppression parity with the Chinese. When I hear this, I know it's just ignorance talking, but it still drives me mad that a level of snooping that's not even in the same league as every day corporate data mining or desktop spyware suddenly has people believing the U.S. government steals pages from Mao's playbook.

  6. I trust neither by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I trust neither China nor the US to provide me with an encryption standard that protects my privacy. Neither government is known for their fondness of people's privacy.

    If anything, a free and most of all open standard could win my heart. But as long as governments are involved, who have an inherent interest in snooping, I will not rely on their security only and use encryption that is under MY (or at least that of about a billion flaw-seekers worldwide) control.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:I trust neither by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's always a possibility that Rijndael was chosen because the NSA noticed a vulnerability in the algorithm which the rest of the cryptanalyst community hasn't found, but it does seem (vanishingly) unlikely.

      I trust Rijndael with my data for now, I've yet to see a good reason not to. Just because the NSA decided to adopt it doesn't make it vulnerable. The NSA adopted Linux too, does that make Linux vulnerable?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:I trust neither by dpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

      I seem to remember some old stories about the NSA and the DES standard.

      The NSA pushed for a few changes in the standard, without divulging the reasons. Some thought it was to insert a backdoor or vulnerability. Years later, after the outside world developed more crypto expertise, the found that the NSA had actually closed a vulnerability that nobody else even knew about. If the NSA had a backdoor into DES, it was with hardware that could brute-force it.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:I trust neither by Pale+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is one clever piece of NSA-misinformation. Fairly standard for NSA though. And you bought it.

      --
      ze dog has no nose
    4. Re:I trust neither by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Such a standard would be openly published, for anybody to inspect. It would, in fact, be an open standard. That's why we have standards.
      So ... basically ... like 802.11i, the proposed standard by the IEEE, and AES, which is at its core? And not like the Chinese standard?

      You can download the IEEE spec here: http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802. 11i-2004.pdf. You're not allowed to modify or distribute it, and the IEEE retains copyright, but you can download, read, inspect, and archive it. That's a lot more than I can say about the Chinese version.

      Information on AES can be had directly from the NIST (http://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/aes/rijndael/R ijndael-ammended.pdf).
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:I trust neither by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/the_ legacy_of_d.html

      Of course, this assumes that Bruce Schneier is not an NSA stooge.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  7. Re:openssl? by zootm · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not any sort of expert, but I believe that OpenSSL is an implementation of an existing standard, whereas the things up for debate here are the next-generation standards to use. Furthermore, these standards are for wireless connections, which isn't something that OpenSSL has anything to do with.

    So basically, it's not relevant, I'm afraid.

  8. it's all about money by ezh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most of these 'standards' come with a lot of strings attached: implementation of certain pieces of technology, support infrastructure, etc. are patented. patents rule this world. wapi must be well-protected by chinese corporations, while its alternative is probably surrounded by a patent mind field that belongs to u.s. companies. it is all about money, as usual.

  9. Re:If China Does Not Like It. . . by backwardMechanic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Selling stuff. Why restrict yourself to your home market when you can sell to the whole world? You've gotta think big.

  10. Erm by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China throws a hissy fit because it's standards not used? How is this new? It's standard practice to storm out if something you don't like happens. It disrupts the meeting and makes you get your way much easier. Every 4 year old kid can tell you this..

    I don't trust China and I don't trust America, but last time I checked "offical" ment jackshit in the tech world. People will use what they deem is best and anything official will either be picked by geeks and become standard or it'll be dead within a few years and replaced by another standard untill geekdom kicks in.

    --
    I like muppets.
  11. And Apple is pushing... by demongeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    i11.208, the white and user-friendly encryption that is so hip only the coolest will use it (or be able to afford it)..

    I jest! I jest! *ducks*

  12. Not so fast Sherlock... by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no "backdoors" in standards, only in implementations.

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    1. Re:Not so fast Sherlock... by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's see what the real issues are:

      IEEE / ISO standard == open standard
      Chinese WAPI == closed standard

      The Chinese government requires that any implimentor pay
      licensing costs to China. If you want to embed their WAPI,
      you must incorporate in China with a Chinese entity as the
      majority shareholder. The questions become: "Does Intel
      really want to make the Chinese government their "senior"
      partner in chipset fabs, just to get WAPI embedded?"
      "And considering the potential for Chinese government trojans
      and/or backdoors in their WAPI code, would Intel risk losing
      any /all of their Western government hardware sales by
      adopting WAPI?"

      Leveno quality control, as well as the increased potential for
      trojans / backdoors in their software drivers, has already
      made a negative impact on sales of IBM's former hardware
      company.

    2. Re:Not so fast Sherlock... by jdhutchins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also possible the NSA knew of some weakness, and then subtly changed the algorithm to fix it. The NSA's internal research is possibly many, many years ahead of the rest of the world's research. IIRC, when DES was being developed, the NSA made some changed to it, but didn't say why. Years later, when differential cryptography was invented/discovered, the NSA's changes made perfect sense because it made the algorithm resistant to many of those types of attacks.

  13. Hypocracy by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're all upset that the Chinese want to introduce their closed-door proprietary standard...

    But please, tell me, how many cryptographers were consulted BEFORE the design of WEP? I know of a few who worked on the implementation AFTER the design [e.g. when they couldn't change things]. WEP and WAP [and WiMAX and ...] are all essentially closed door standards. Even if you're in the SIG you're only one of many. And the many are usually NOT cryptographers so they'll basically vote for whatever turns into the least amount of VB.NET code for their Windows only drivers.

    Like it's so fucking hard to get a shared-secret lossy communication medium secured... AES + CCM + proper rekeying == router that doesn't cost 69.95$ at Fry's but does == a wifi device you can trust.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Hypocracy by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the reason why printer drivers (in particular) are so big is that they have to recognize and refuse to print money, and put in tracable watermarks and stuff.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  14. This "standard" is fucking ridiculous by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to partner with a bloody Chinese company to build equipment based on it.

    That's fucking ridiculous.

    The standard is unpublished, and will not be published. It checks in security keys with a centralized Chinese government server.

    I cannot imagine a world that would permit this to become an international standard, and if China insists on all equipment manufactured within its borders to have this technology it'll just push electronics manufacturing out of China.

    For a long time, people have predicted that the heavy hand of the Chinese government will one day disrupt the economic boom happening there. I hope to god not; an unstable, economically volatile China sounds like a nightmare to me.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  15. Sounds a lot like DPRK by amightywind · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...a lot of dirty tricks including deception, misinformation, confusion and reckless charging to lobby against WAPI.

    I think China and North Korea use the same publicist.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  16. Poor diplomacy is counterproductive by mclaincausey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If China wants to be heard in the international community, then they should participate in other global standards, or should have opened up the design and devlopment process of WAPI to either participation or scrutiny. They developed the standard knowing that their was an international effort (NOT American) to come up with the next generation of WLAN encryption, so I have no sympathy for the wasted effort at this stage. If China wants to effectively participate in the global standards game, they should, for instance, start a Common Criteria scheme and become a signatory country. It seems to this casual observer that China often likes to go it alone wrt standards, and when they suddenly start blustering about this international community not subscribing to their arbitrary standard is ridiculous. Why should the IEEE's efforts be thrown out? They lost the vote. They can complain about the vote being rigged or unfair, but a voting system is the closest approximation to a fair way of determining next-gen standards. I hear voting isn't so popular over in China though.

    --
    (%i1) factor(777353);
    (%o1) 777353
  17. Raises interesting question by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What if some day the Chinese decided that they're not going to produce devices that don't meet their standards? So far it hasn't been a problem but if the government decided all Chinese factories were going to produce routers with China-Fi encryption, that's what they'd produce.

    And since they own all our manufacturing capacity, there would be little we could do about it. It would take years to tool up enough manufacturing to replace everything we depend on them to produce.

    I guess being dependent on foreign oil wasn't good enough. We had to match that folly by sending our component manufacturing overseas as well.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Raises interesting question by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What if some day the Chinese decided that they're not going to produce devices that don't meet their standards?

      Then world governments dictate that all WAPI-enabled router imports ship with an OpenVPN installer CD, and we all go the sane route of running trusted VPN software over untrusted open Wi-Fi connections.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  18. Why do they need a separate encryption standard by k1980pc · · Score: 3, Funny

    when Mandarin or Cantonese is equally or more effective :)

  19. Re:"Christian"? WTF? by Loquax · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Two quick comments-- 1) The USA is not run by Christians. It is run by Capitalists who often use Christianity as a cover.

    2) By the very definition of Christian (do unto others..., Love your neighbor as yourself..., love your enemy, etc.) anyone who would burn a person out of their house is NOT a Christian. Just like anyone who would commit a suicide attack on innocents (or suicide in general) is NOT acting within the bounds of Islam and are NOT Muslim.

    One final thought. I'd much rather trust a person of religious faith (any faith for that matter) that says there is more to this world than what we see and that there is an absolute mandate to be spiritually "good" than I would trust a philosophy that says that the material world, run by materialistic rules, is all that there is (this includes both Capitalism and Communisim).

  20. Re:I guess the Chinese aren't good diplomats by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they did?

    They proposed a secret standard, with a central key repository (located on Chinese government servers). Implementation of this standard was given to 12 Chinese companies, and developing any devices based on this standard requires partnering with these Chinese manufacturers.

    It isn't patent-encumbered, but that's because its a secret, and patenting it would require releasing the details.

    There isn't any debate to win. Not only is it proprietary versus open, its proprietary and exclusively controlled-and-licensed-and-manufactured by the Chinese government and Chinese state-owned companies.

    Everything about WAPI is wrong.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  21. An informative article... by wkcole · · Score: 4, Informative

    EETimes did a fact-rich article in March. The first paragraph of the second page is most illuminating. It seems the "startup" that owns the secret encryption mechanism lacks any visible means of support, and it is a "spinoff" of a government body.

    IMHO there is far too much polite gentility and benefit of the doubt shown in the media, and ISO, and WTO and even /. to the thugs who run China. There's no moral or technical equivalency involved here. The Chinese government presented WAPI late accompanied by protectionist threats and has been whining disingenuously about the world mistreating it in the process ever since. WAPI has received over 2 years of special treatment because the rest of the world relies on Chinese de facto slave labor to build its electronic goods. If the ISO process was being run honestly with a legitimate goal of defining a trustworthy secure standard that can be widely implemented in interoperable and competitive ways, WAPI would have been dismissed when first proposed.

  22. Dropping the Bomb by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walking out on negotiations might work when you're holding the nukes or the Tibet being discussed at a diplomatic meeting. But walking out on engineering standards meetings for consumer electronics seems more like giving up. Maybe when you're a mafia government that rules by decree with an iron fist, you can't tell the difference.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  23. Re:"Christian"? WTF? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh yes they are Christians & Muslims. They read the same texts and interpreted them differently. There are some good rules for living in the Bible and the Koran but both also contain some really nasty guidance. It's worth checking the Bible to see some of the nastier areas and also see what the Koran has to say regards unbelievers.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  24. Re:"Christian"? WTF? by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, the christian taliban is in control of the gov. For starters, listen to W. when he does a speach. He will state that God is on ourside, which is nothing less than sacraligous. He does not know exactly what god or christ wants. Worse, he does that will at the same time ordering the torture, maming, and murder of others. I seriously doubt that Christ would want that.

    Last night, 60 minutes had a great expose about the plan B. We are trying to move to over the counter since it has been shown to be safe. The admin shelved it due to concerns about under developing kids. getting it. So the company pushed for through the pharmasist, but no prescription needed (i.e. control of the drug). This time, the admin flat out tabled it and even went so far as to speak about moral objections, but not one word of a scientific argument against it.

    They are currently trying hard to table a vaccine that would prevent cervical cancer for women, but it has to be admin as a child. The gov. is now fighting it as they argue that it would make women more promiscious( this is the same argument that Reagan used in 1981 to not fund CDC additionally for fighting against the HIV beginning; that religious choice has literally cost America 100's of billions of dollars and 10's of 1000's of lives and will continue to do so until a vaccine is developed). Fortunately, once this admin is gone, it is most likely that the next admin will reverse that choice, and this one will only cost America a few thousand women lives and 100's of millions of dollar (a high price, but it is stoppable).

    I do not like Iran, but at least they are open about. They hold an election, and then the freely elected governs in conjuction with islam priest. OTH, America holds and election and if a far right winger gets in, he is beholden to the christian extermists (bear in mind, that the vast majority of christians are not extremists and do not desire to have the church control us; just a small minority who are hard core; Focus on the Family, Pat robertson (1 ton leg lifts or lets murder chavez), Oral Roberts(god is recalling me), and of course, the moral majority (which are neither) ).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  25. Re:"Christian"? WTF? by lump · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sorry, but your "One final thought" is logically flawed. Trusting someone who believes things for which there is no evidence is a bad idea. People who believe whatever they want are the same people who do whatever they want, and then delude themselves into "believing" they must be right. Especially when they are constantly hypnotizing themselves into believing they must be "good" and "true", because they "follow god".

    Conversely, people who accept reality are not in the habit of deluding themselves, and are less likely to lie to themselves and excuse their own actions. This is more likely to result in a trustworthy person. "Be true to yourself" is good advice.

    --
    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists.