Slashdot Mirror


Report Says China Will Demand Source Code

An anonymous reader alerts us to a two-week-old story that hasn't gotten much traction in the press to date. A Japanese newspaper and the AP report that China plans to demand source code from hardware manufacturers, and ban the sale of products from companies that don't comply. China is calling this an "obligatory accreditation system for IT security products." The plan is to go into effect next May, according to sources. "Products expected to be subject to the system are those equipped with secret coding, such as [a] contactless smart card system developed by Sony Corp., digital copiers, and computer servers. The Chinese government said it needs the source code to prevent computer viruses taking advantage of software vulnerabilities and to shut out hackers. However, this explanation is unlikely to satisfy concerns that disclosed information might be handed from the Chinese government to Chinese companies. There also are fears that Chinese intelligence services could exploit such confidential information by making it easier to break codes used in... digital devices."

305 comments

  1. So they can counterfeit by rugger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haha,

    Yes, why would chinese business go to the effort of replicating the functionality of western devices when their government can just demand we give the source code to the devices.

    Expect to see more Sorny goods if this goes ahead!

    1. Re:So they can counterfeit by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It just doesn't work like this because those "western devices" are probably already made in Asia.

      I was visiting a Chinese factory that made widgets, and member of staff showed me a widget branded by a "famous western company" to impress upon me that the widgets made in their factory were of a high standard. "Here's a sample to take home, but don't tell anyone *wink* *wink*".

      Their agreement may not exclude selling the widget in part, or in whole on the domestic market, so the brands are in fact a complete myth. Those fake Sony goods that have been re-badged as a Chinese brand could be close to functionally identical, albeit with a much lower price tag.

      Another experience I had, was with a certain widget that had interchangeable parts. The product as a whole would be sold on the domestic market with Chinese branded parts, or swapped out for a brand that would know for export.

      It's all bullshit but very interesting to observe, and as an audience you are really overestimating the Chinese government's intervention which is close to none. This is just companies chasing profits with as much regard for ethics as our own companies.

    2. Re:So they can counterfeit by uberjack · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, a Sorny would complement my Panaphonics and Magnetbox quite nicely

    3. Re:So they can counterfeit by magarity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They might manufacture the physical widget there but they didn't program the driver or firmware - it came on a master rom or was bundled in a cd already compiled.

    4. Re:So they can counterfeit by MrNaz · · Score: 0

      Even if that's the case and this is nothing but a thinly veiled plot to steal product knowledge, I have no problem with China using their power to extort western companies. After all, China's population (and indeed the rest of the third world) has been extorted by Western companies for the better part of two centuries now, so if you ask me, it's about time profligate western nations got a taste of what it's like at the other end of the stick.

      They're just giving back what they got, now that they're big enough.

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:So they can counterfeit by edittard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you ask me, it's about time profligate western nations got a taste of what it's like at the other end of the stick.

      Brought to you by the two-wrongs-make-a-right department.

      One other thing. Extort doesn't normally take a person or people as its direct object.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    6. Re:So they can counterfeit by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brought to you by the two-wrongs-make-a-right department.

      That would be a meaningful response if the West was currently a good global citizen engaging in fair trade and not still engaging in military campaigns with the thinly veiled purpose of usurping economic resources. But as it stands, the west is still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for control of petroleum, De Beers is still financing wars in Africa to ensure the continuance of its diamond monopoly, South East Asian nations are still used as a source of cheap de facto slave labour, the IMF is still used as the G8's stick to ensure sovereignty of the third world governments is a purchasable commodity and companies like Bechtel are still pulling this sort of rubbish.

      So, sorry, your moral high horse has no legs.

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:So they can counterfeit by jalet · · Score: 1

      Western devices ?

      Last time I checked, Japan (Sony) was in China's East, not West.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    8. Re:So they can counterfeit by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing new.

      In other industry sectors, China had "joint venture requirements" for years, which amounted to the opportunity for a Chinese company to grab the know-how. As an example see http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/18/chinas-automobile-joint-venture-requirement-may-end-in-2010/

      Any western company that still falls for this deserves to be ripped off. I guess if I was a CEO, I would sell only equipment to China that is somewhat obsolete and does not give away my company's latest technology.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    9. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I client of mine had to completely stop selling a product. To be competitive he had to make his widgets (hight end sound elements) in China like everybody else. At several occasions during "surprise factory inspections" he found sub-par, out of spec end-products. At some point some items where even with his logo replaced by some unknown Asian brand. Suddenly all sales in Asia and part of Europe came to a near stop. Within months they just change product line altogether.

      This is exactly why numerous parents around me are throwing away their 25-35 years old oven or washing machine, at the same time as their kid's 3 to 5 years old ones. Quality is dead for low price is king. The landfills have plenty of space anyway.

      Their is a difference between a product that is already made in China anyway, and a product that is being re-produced to be sold as unfair competition. Even the most hard core capitalist system has some laws to let the hard working people get some reasonable amount of revenue from their work. (Let's not argue on how he system is sliding away in this topic). In China corruption is the norm. Just like in the Old West, but with modern equipment and factories.

      I do not think China can give any lesson on "with as much regard for ethics as our own companies", when all level of business, government and legal (if any), are in it to get the profits in total disregard of security, justice or basic decency without any possibility of consequences. We should be very careful with them.

      We should all forget the USA as the unfair capitalist system. China is the most savage capitalists of all. They where already grabbing everything they could on foreign markets and use it in total diseregard of any international aw or agreement. Now they want you to give it to them on a platter.

    10. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Begone, foul fiend of logic and reason, and leave us to our kneejerk jingoism. Don't you know what Slashdot's for?

    11. Re:So they can counterfeit by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Funny

      But Sony is as American as apple pie.

    12. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all bullshit but very interesting to observe, and as an audience you are really overestimating the Chinese government's intervention which is close to none. This is just companies chasing profits with as much regard for ethics as our own companies.

      So, they should try to establish their own brands and technology in the "west" by producing simple and reliable products -- something lost to many western companies caught by the feature creep. Or would the idea of minimalism dictated by the level of technology be somehow too Japanese or Marxist perhaps? Keeping Chan influence in products could be easier for the Chinese.

    13. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "Sorny"-style goods aren't made in China these days. Keep in mind that China is usually the place where the legitimate goods are produced. The knockoffs are now made in India, and increasingly in Africa.

    14. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are plenty of stupidity in your post, but I'll point out the obvious one...

      South East Asian nations are still used as a source of cheap de facto slave labour

      South East Asian nations choose the price at which they let Western Nations operate. It's not hard for the nation to set a minimum wage law. Ever wonder why they don't? Oh, because the country gets to majorly benefit from it! They get massive employment for their population, making a fairly decent wage by their standards, and the country gets a massive infrastructure. And who's bringing these poor third world nations into industrialized nations? That's right, your greedy western corporation.

      Someone give this kid a macro-economics class and a psychiatrist to reverse his stupid activist brain-washing..

    15. Re:So they can counterfeit by AftanGustur · · Score: 1
      Well, Microsoft started doing this with Windows a long time ago..

      Remember the company which did real-time disk compression ? Microsoft demamnded the code and then used it in the next release of windows, got sued and the Bill Gates committed Perjury by claiming that MIcrosoft engineers had not copied any code.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think Apple is no better when it comes to the iPhone, if you want to sell your application you have to submitt the sourcecode.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    16. Re:So they can counterfeit by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Troll

      You guys are missing the point: Demanding that the source code be made available for your products is a reasonable thing to do. Just like demanding that the ingredients of your foodstuffs be made available is a reasonable thing to do. It has to do with safety and trust.

      You guys are so caught up in fighting for your right to maintain the ignorance of third parties for your own competitive advantage, you're missing the point. This is a reasonable thing to do, and we should be doing it everywhere in the world.

      If you don't like it, you can always stop sucking on the communist teat and die waving your flag and trumpeting how great Capitalism is. It's not like they aren't providing you everything as though you were little children who can't take care of yourself already.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    17. Re:So they can counterfeit by Missing_dc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Blought to you by the two-wongs-make-a-wight depahtment.

      There, fixed that for ya!

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    18. Re:So they can counterfeit by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Even if that's the case and this is nothing but a thinly veiled plot to steal product knowledge..."

      Well, this is just a more overt instance of such corporate espionage. The Chinese have been VERY active over the past decades in spying, both corporate and military. They are very prolific at espionage, and this is just a new slant on their programs...now that we have given them so much of the hardware knowledge over the years by moving manufacturing over there. This is just a logical next step.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:So they can counterfeit by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny
      "But as it stands, the west is still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for control of petroleum..."

      Afghanistan has oil???

      I thought they only were good for terrorists and drugs?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:So they can counterfeit by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You guys are missing the point: Demanding that the source code be made available for your products is a reasonable thing to do. Just like demanding that the ingredients of your foodstuffs be made available is a reasonable thing to do. It has to do with safety and trust.

      The ONLY real reason a company maintains ANY closed source is profitability. Everyone would run open source otherwise, because it costs way too damn much money to maintain close source, from physical protection to legal costs.

      I sure as hell don't see people boycotting Coca Cola products because they haven't revealed their secret formula to EVERYONE.

      That being said, one CANNOT overlook WHO is asking for the closed source, and determining the REAL reason WHY they need it. Somehow the words "safety" and "trust" do NOT come to mind.

    21. Re:So they can counterfeit by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that isn't actually true. The main reason why China has spent so much money in the US is so that they can continue to exploit their workers. They keep the wages artificially low with currency value manipulation and refusing to pay their workers accordingly. Which allows their government to continue to exert a larger than appropriate degree of control on the people.

      Ultimately that hurts the US as well since our workers can't work for that low of a wage.

    22. Re:So they can counterfeit by bytesex · · Score: 1

      As soon as Coca Cola would be the only thing we can drink, and it is made abroad, you can bet your ass that they (that is, any government) would demand the recipe.

      No government procuring security devices should allow the procurement of devices that are black-box on any layer. The Chinese government's demands are nothing but realistic and logical, the risks of unfair competition notwithstanding. Oh, and I think that you'll find that many companies are willing to take that risk when they balance it against the Chinese (government) market.

      BTW. you didn't think those border confiscations that they're allowed to do in the US now, would have anything to do with the NSA being overly friendly with certain US companies, did you ?

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    23. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right and you're ad hominem attacks on the US are any better. Just admit it you have no idea what you're talking about.

    24. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, the OP didn't even mention the US.

      Oh, and it's "your", moron.

    25. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That being said, one CANNOT overlook WHO is asking for the closed source, and determining the REAL reason WHY they need it. Somehow the words "safety" and "trust" do NOT come to mind.

      Is William Shatner posting on Slashdot now?

    26. Re:So they can counterfeit by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why numerous parents around me are throwing away their 25-35 years old oven or washing machine, at the same time as their kid's 3 to 5 years old ones

      WTF? The only oven I've seen last more than 10yrs was my granddad's Rayburn. Given that it had no moving parts, was made entirely out of cast iron and was integrated into his house as the boiler for his central heating it's no wonder it lasted about 50yrs. It may still be in use, he died 10yrs ago so assuming the new owners of his house appreciate things like wood burning range cookers it could still be in use! As a contrast the electric fan oven my parents used to have lasted about 15yrs, eventually the element and the fan motor both packed in and getting spares was too hard. I reckon that's not too bad for a device that had been heat cycling from room temp to 200C every day.

      As for washing machines, I've never seen one last more than 5 or 6yrs doing at least one sometimes two washes a day without something going wrong with them. They're full of moving parts!

      --
      Nick
    27. Re:So they can counterfeit by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Brought to you by the two-wrongs-make-a-right department.

      You say this as if forcing DRM purveyors to release their source is a "wrong".

      If anything, it's more of a "right" than giving 5 trillion dollars to an old lady handling pans.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    28. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We should all forget the USA as the unfair capitalist system. China is the most savage capitalists of all.

      Whoa! Hold your horses. What you're describing is not capitalism, it's corporatism. In a pure capitalist society, the government is supposed to make sure everyone plays fair. In a corporatist society, the government doesn't give a shit about fair play as long as they get a big pay check.

    29. Re:So they can counterfeit by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's ironic that Chinese communism has learned to survive by becoming, in some ways, a better capitalist society than America.

    30. Re:So they can counterfeit by cruelworld · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      there is NOTHING more annoying than this retard trend of "fixed it for ya". When the fuck did this happen? Did a retard meme take control of the world when i was sleeping?

    31. Re:So they can counterfeit by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why numerous parents around me are throwing away their 25-35 years old oven or washing machine, at the same time as their kid's 3 to 5 years old ones. Quality is dead for low price is king. The landfills have plenty of space anyway.

      We should all forget the USA as the unfair capitalist system. China is the most savage capitalists of all. They where already grabbing everything they could on foreign markets and use it in total diseregard of any international aw or agreement. Now they want you to give it to them on a platter.

      It's also why the quality of a given product line can vary wildly sometimes even within the same production run. As if it isn't hard enough to find quality goods. Better testing would catch a lot of this but that costs money so it needs work to sell it and so the system slides.

      What is happening with the US vs. China situation in some ways parallels the UK vs. US situation. Well, except that the US and China really don't care for each other generally and have little reason to restrain themselves. To an extent, capitalism relies upon good will towards others to work. In situations where that is not present it tends to run away with itself.

    32. Re:So they can counterfeit by serber · · Score: 1

      Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think Apple is no better when it comes to the iPhone, if you want to sell your application you have to submitt the sourcecode.

      Er, yes, you are wrong. That's never been part of the App Store requirements. You only submit compiled binaries and screenshots.

      --
      Sometimes bad things happen.
    33. Re:So they can counterfeit by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      The ONLY real reason a company maintains ANY closed source is profitability. Everyone would run open source otherwise, because it costs way too damn much money to maintain close source, from physical protection to legal costs.

      I sure as hell don't see people boycotting Coca Cola products because they haven't revealed their secret formula to EVERYONE.

      That being said, one CANNOT overlook WHO is asking for the closed source, and determining the REAL reason WHY they need it. Somehow the words "safety" and "trust" do NOT come to mind.


      Have you looked? I haven't tried it yet, but I've been looking into sourcing the stuff to make it, and if it's good, I intend to do just that. I don't imagine it would be hard to turn my friends and family on to the idea, either.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    34. Re:So they can counterfeit by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>Their agreement may not exclude selling the widget in part, or in whole on the domestic market, so the brands are in fact a complete myth.

      It also assumes they hold up their end of an agreement, which is laughable. After Qualcomm got a bunch of Chinese factories up and running with their Q-phone, China Telecom started selling their C-phone, which was an exact duplicate of the Q-phone, made by the same people that Qualcomm had trained in making their phones. They're so dishonest, it's fucking scary that so much of our technical manufacturing is being done over there - we're paying for their postgraduate education, and giving them free blueprints to rip us off with.

    35. Re:So they can counterfeit by morcego · · Score: 1

      You are right. The software usually is developed on Hong Kong, India or Korean.

      --
      morcego
    36. Re:So they can counterfeit by chibiace · · Score: 0

      i had a cheap device that came with Sqmy batteries

      --
      he who controls the spice controls the universe
    37. Re:So they can counterfeit by mblase · · Score: 1

      It's all bullshit but very interesting to observe, and as an audience you are really overestimating the Chinese government's intervention which is close to none. This is just companies chasing profits with as much regard for ethics as our own companies.

      ...except for a little thing called government safety regulation. As the recent milk scandal in China has demonstrated, a capitalist profit motive is a fine and good thing, as long as the government (or at least the multinationals looking to sell this stuff in the West) is doing its part to oversee legal compliance, and the press is allowed to report when it's failing to occur.

    38. Re:So they can counterfeit by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      Right so you'd be happy to offer up your job first, I assume?

    39. Re:So they can counterfeit by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      The Western economy was not created on the back of the third world. In large part it simply grew and the third world didn't. Was colonialism an issue in parts of the world? Sure. Were the opium wars an issue in China? Sure. But that is not the reason China's economy was at the point it was at the start of its new resurgence: an obsolete socio-economic system was, and that goes for almost all of the third world.
      Afghanistan has no oil and only limited use as a pipeline transit route, which is probably why the US has apparently put it on the backburner. Working in a third world sweatshop isn't particularly pleasant, but it is clearly preferable to their lot without western investment, or they simply wouldn't do it. IMO, these countries are far more damaged by their own amateurish and corrupt governments than foreign companies, and those that do have effective systems are, with the help of the companies you deride, capable of making incredible progression in standard of living, Korea, Taiwan and recently mainland China being the obvious examples. Even de beers is capable of being a positive force, as Botswana demonstrates.
      Economic growth is the only real way to significantly and permanently improve the lives of people in the third world, and foreign investment is the only way that's going to happen. It's terrible that countries have been abused in the past, but the idea that western interests are only in these countries to rape and pillage under the banner of capitalism is thankfully a largely defunct notion.
      So what does China have to do with this? The government in the past has been canny enough to realize they are hugely benefited by being an attractive destination for foreign investment. If they make this kind of demand, it is very possible some companies will come to the conclusion it costs them more to operate in China than it's worth and move elsewhere. So no, in my view this is not an understandable move by the Chinese government that serves the greedy western capitalists right, it's a stupid move that's going to slow China's development and hurt its people.

    40. Re:So they can counterfeit by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      Coke is made and bottled all over the world. It's kind of a stupid line of conversation because Coke's real value lies in their marketing, distribution and general mind share, not some secret formula. But you are still incorrect.
      The fact is Western governments and Western companies do not trust the Chinese government, and with good reason. THEY are a closed box, totally nontransparent on technology issues.
      I don't know what border confiscations you're talking about, but whatever it is you're wrong on this as well. The US government has let itself get into the position where it is not properly screening out unsafe products. The Chinese are notorious for exporting unsafe products. Until they demonstrate that they've fixed this I absolutely agree with placing more emphasis on their products than more "trustworthy" countries.

    41. Re:So they can counterfeit by sjames · · Score: 1

      Haha,

      Yes, why would chinese business go to the effort of replicating the functionality of western devices when their government can just demand we give the source code to the devices.

      Expect to see more Sorny goods if this goes ahead!

      It could be for that, or perhaps they are aware (as I wish the U.S. would be) that binary blobs are a huge security risk.

    42. Re:So they can counterfeit by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      IMO, these countries are far more damaged by their own amateurish and corrupt governments than foreign companies,

      And how do these amateurish tinpot dictators get into power and stay there? The best leaders outside the first world, those who have had the greatest positive impact upon their nations are deliberately sabotaged by first world subterfuge and underhanded unfair play. Prime example: the assassination of Salvadore Allende in Chile in the 70s. It's the only event that's not in dispute, but if you believe it was an isolated incident and that that sort of thing doesn't go on any more then you're not being realistic. There's also the Nicraguan bay mining incident as well, which just came to my mind.

      Economic growth is the only real way to significantly and permanently improve the lives of people in the third world, and foreign investment is the only way that's going to happen. It's terrible that countries have been abused in the past, but the idea that western interests are only in these countries to rape and pillage under the banner of capitalism is thankfully a largely defunct notion.

      Defunct notion? Explain to me how IMF loans that are granted in the name of "development" but come with a long list of conditions such as that infrastructure development must be contracted out to western corporations such as Bechtel is anything *but* modern pillaging.

      Explain to me how it is not pillaging when the debt forgiveness granted on these loans is only tied to conditions such as ownership in national assets such as tollways and electricity grids.

      The best and clearest example of direct pillaging is the Diego Garcia incident. Go look it up before you use the words "raping and pillaging" in a pompous way that makes it look like that doesn't go on any more.

      Afghanistan has no oil and only limited use as a pipeline transit route, which is probably why the US has apparently put it on the backburner.

      Afghanistan does not have "limited use" as a pipeline route, it is absolutely crucial in the global petrochemical strategy, but lets not bother arguing that one as its pretty complex.

      Working in a third world sweatshop isn't particularly pleasant, but it is clearly preferable to their lot without western investment, or they simply wouldn't do it.

      I get very angry when people glibly say rubbish like this. Have you been to this third world you seem so eager to pontificate on? I've been there. I've lived with those people. I've been to a sweatshop to see what its like, spoken to the foremen and the workers.

      Sweatshops are the most demeaning, soul crushing places imaginable, and people only work there because their options are either that or death. This is no option at all. The existence of the sweatshop economy is the result of foreign investment interests deliberately influencing local politics and economics in such a way that a large pool of otherwise unemployed people is created who thus have no option *but* to work in a sweatshop.

      Foreign investment is not always a good thing, in fact for the third world it's rarely a good thing. Best example of a clearly exploitative attempt at foreign investment is the water infrastructure deal Bechtel attempted to ram through the government of Bolivia. Again, don't be silly enough to think that that is an isolated incident.

      Defunct notion indeed.

      --
      I hate printers.
    43. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it

    44. Re:So they can counterfeit by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      Get as angry as you want. The fact is working in a sweatshop is better than dying, and that is the choice they have. I'm sorry that's the case, I'm afraid I don't follow your point about foreign investment creating unemployment. As with the industrial revolution in the West, people are coming to cities to work and live in near total squalor, but they do it to avoid starving quietly in the countryside.
      I agree with you that foreign investment can be a negative force when done incorrectly. But in the case of China specifically, the days of the unequal treaties are over. In Latin America, the days of the cold war are over. And in the case overall, I believe foreign investment is the only chance many countries have.
      And yes, I have seen grinding poverty in India, Yemen and Egypt and the lingering economic malaise in Syria. It's not that I don't care about the misery in those places. But I choose to throw my support behind the best way I believe things are going to get better for them. No the IMF and the World Bank are not perfect organizations and they have made mistakes, but I do not believe they are out to screw countries over but rather to help them, misguided and unsuccessful as some of their efforts may be.
      Despite how it seems, the world is actually getting healthier and richer for almost all its inhabitants with the exception of Africa. This talk you may have seen demonstrates that:
      http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

      I believe open markets are in large part responsible for this massive improvement in the lives of so much of humanity, particularly in Asia. So on the balance, yes I do believe foreign investment is incredibly important for the future of humanity, and I disagree entirely that it is "rarely a good thing" for developing countries. I believe you are looking very closely at existing misery in the world and failing to realize that, miserable as it is, it is vastly improved from where it was even just a few decades ago or where it would be without open markets.

    45. Re:So they can counterfeit by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Just don't ask where you got the apples from!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    46. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, two-Wongs-make-a-right?

    47. Re:So they can counterfeit by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      well if we have no right to complain about bad behavior, neither do they. so really where does your position bring you really. you feel good slapping yourself on your back for your moral superiority. its a cheap position that places the most oppressive governments like china where your equivalent post would have landed you in a jail cell to western democracies. its cheap moral relativism.

    48. Re:So they can counterfeit by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      "Sweatshops are the most demeaning, soul crushing places imaginable, and people only work there because their options are either that or death. This is no option at all. The existence of the sweatshop economy is the result of foreign investment interests deliberately influencing local politics and economics in such a way that a large pool of otherwise unemployed people is created who thus have no option *but* to work in a sweatshop." nonsense. china has people flocking over from the country side to work in factories because they are well paid by the standards of where they came from. many go work in factories for a few years and are able to return home and buy a home. frankly something most americans could never imagine being able to do these days. poverty of preindustrialized areas where people worked the land for very little was hardly doing anything good for their souls.

    49. Re:So they can counterfeit by alecwood · · Score: 0

      American apple pie's are made in Japan too?!

      I wish you hadn't told me that, along with the existence of Santa Claus, the American apple pie being really American was the last childhood illusion I was successfully holding on to.

      --
      Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
    50. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      I have a washer/dryer over 25, stove/oven even older and a microwave that is probably over 30 that I replaced the membrane keypad just after the 1yr warranty expired. All in all, not too scruffy, I doubt t would get that kind of longevity from a replacement purchased today.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    51. Re:So they can counterfeit by MattLees · · Score: 1

      ...But as it stands, the west is still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for control of petroleum...

      Afghanistan is a source of oil? Really? Not sure you have your facts straight there.

    52. Re:So they can counterfeit by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Sweatshops are the most demeaning, soul crushing places imaginable, and people only work there because their options are either that or death. This is no option at all. The existence of the sweatshop economy is the result of foreign investment interests deliberately influencing local politics and economics in such a way that a large pool of otherwise unemployed people is created who thus have no option *but* to work in a sweatshop.

      And the other option? Working as a subsistence farmer on a barely arable plot of land with a single bad year of unreliable rain dooming you to starvation is better?

      Did you ever stop to wonder why they chose to work in the sweatshop? And once that got started, there's an entire row of economic dominoes that fell in rapid succession that ensures sweatshops continue, because, like it or not, it is better than subsistence farming in many areas of the world and can sustain a larger population.

      This doesn't mean sweatshops are "good". But they apparently are better than the alternative.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    53. Re:So they can counterfeit by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      My parent's last microwave lasted over 18 years, and was used every day. Now, they were told by the assistant in one of the most reputable department stores locally that they would be lucky to find one which lasted for more than 5 years, and that 3 years was more likely. Furthermore, apparently, apart from one Swedish brand, they were mostly made in the same factory complex in China.

      Their old front-loader washing machine lasted for over 15 years, apart from a drive belt, and died because the (very primitive) electronics failed.

      I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but this does seem to invalidate your theory

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    54. Re:So they can counterfeit by edittard · · Score: 1

      No I don't, please learn to read.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    55. Re:So they can counterfeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is NOTHING more annoying than faggots like me with no sense of humor who eat poo off a dog's dick.

      Fixed that for you, grandad.

    56. Re:So they can counterfeit by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      As the recent milk scandal in China has demonstrated, a capitalist profit motive is a fine and good thing, as long as the government (or at least the multinationals looking to sell this stuff in the West) is doing its part to oversee legal compliance, and the press is allowed to report when it's failing to occur.

      Well now, that's the catch, isn't it? Note that in the milk scandal you mentioned, they only started doing anything about when some foreign (Taiwan) kids died. Then, all of a sudden, it turns out there have been something like 53,000 children affected in the PRC. Either the government didn't care, or the press wasn't allowed to report on it. They couldn't keep a lid on it outside their borders though, so they were forced to do something about it. Had those products not been sold outside the PRC, you can bet it would still be going on.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  2. Simple solution by DeltaQH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just use open source. ;-)

    1. Re:Simple solution by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm thinking along the same lines in a security context. I have never supported Security Through Obscurity.

      If your security depends on your code being hidden, then I don't find it as valuable as a method that is open to scrutiny. Open Source Vs. Closed Source is a heated debate as always, but Open Source has a serious advantage when it comes to security. Trust. If the public at large can scrutinize the code, it is harder to say that anything nefarious is going on. With Closed Source, you HAVE to trust the company.

      Sony?

      Be fucking serious. The people that brought you a widespread implementation of a root kit to further their own agenda? I am going to have a hard time trusting ANY of their security products.

      I don't know why China may want to do this, but there are good arguments to support their position.

    2. Re:Simple solution by maharg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) provide source code for product x to Beijing
      2) get product x accredited
      3) add nefarious functions to source code, re-compile, surreptitiously update product
      4) ???
      5) profit!

      --

      $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
      @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    3. Re:Simple solution by anss123 · · Score: 3, Informative

      With Closed Source, you HAVE to trust the company.

      In case of hardware you still have to trust the company. Programming backdoors in Verilog may be trickier, but far from impossible.

    4. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be sure, OpenBSD is a good example. There's big points to be scored by picking a flaw out in OBSD, with groups such as Core poring over it and coming up occassionally with at most obscure and fairly theoretical attacks.

      I demand source for everything important, why can't China?

    5. Re:Simple solution by ozphx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As Americans we patriotically support open source and freedom until it comes to someone we don't like (particularily communists).

      And when I say "we" I mean "you fags". Aussie aussie aussie!

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    6. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what I was thinking. Your post is flamebait, but insightful. Since I've been "moderated" by Americans a few times too many, I'll post this as AC. ;-)

    7. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Seriously - legislating that all commercial software must be open source makes a lot of sense from a free market point of view. (It improves transparency, prevents vendor lock-in, etc.) Using copyright law to implement open-sourcing has always struck me as an ugly little hack, that just happens to be the only practical way to do it in the current western political climate.

    8. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My karma can take it ;)

    9. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Issue is not the hardware so much as it is the firmware on hardware devices. That's where the danger is.

    10. Re:Simple solution by anss123 · · Score: 1

      Issue is not the hardware so much as it is the firmware on hardware devices. That's where the danger is.

      Both Hardware and Firmware can have security exploits. Take a CPU, Intel can include instructions that lets you break into kernel mode from user mode or a network card can have a DMA controller that lets you snoop kernel memory - without exposing these features in firmware.

      Putting a security exploit in hardware is trickier, but don't forget that hardware is at the end of the day turing complete.

    11. Re:Simple solution by jc42 · · Score: 1

      1) provide source code for product x to Beijing
      2) get product x accredited
      3) add nefarious functions to source code, re-compile, surreptitiously update product
      4) ???
      5) profit!

      Yeah, that's why for ages the security folks have been saying that you don't just insist on having the source for any software that you buy; you also compile it yourself, using compilers and libraries that you've built the same way.

      Building an actual secure system can be a bit time consuming, of course. But if you run any code that you didn't compile yourself (after having your staff hackers study it), it should be assumed to contain hidden code that does unknown things in addition to what the sales people told you it would do. Otherwise, your security measures are just "security theater".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My guess is that this is to check the hardware for backdoors. Probably figures that they have put out so many backdoors in products like Cisco, Dell, Acer, HP, Apple, etc and now wants to check to make sure that nobody is doing the same to them.

    1. Re:Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hackers that demand the source code. thats lame.
      I believed the Chinese government to be more capable.

    2. Re:Makes you wonder by RDW · · Score: 3, Funny

      'Sources close to the Chinese government were quick to stress that the timing of this announcement and the recent surprise appointment of US software developer Richard M Stallman as Governer of Sichuan Province are entirely coincidental'.

    3. Re:Makes you wonder by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      the us have been at it for a long time so im not supprised tbh.crypto AG

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  4. yeah, right by speedtux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that disclosed information might be handed from the Chinese government to Chinese companies

    It might. And then they have a massive re-engineering problem on their hands. It would usually be easier for them to reimplement the functionality than try to start with undocumented, unsupported source code.

    Doing security audits on software is a legitimate request by a governmental agency. Of course, they should just request that vendors provide open source software.

    1. Re:yeah, right by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would usually be easier for them to reimplement the functionality than try to start with undocumented, unsupported source code.

      I'm sure they would demand that the source code be fully commented and documented. I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse. If they can't understand the source code to begin with then it would be no use to them in the first place.

    2. Re:yeah, right by amirulbahr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure DoD has access to for e.g. Windows source code that they may run on their servers.

      Actually, I wouldn't have a clue but maybe some here knows if this is the case.

    3. Re:yeah, right by ozphx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the DoD does. As does any decent sized organisation, government or not. Its just a matter of signing the NDA.

      Microsoft granted the Chinese government access to the Windows source in 2003 IIRC.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    4. Re:yeah, right by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell... *I* have access to the source code for Windows. Anyone can have access to some, see their shared source licensing program. There are a number of legal ways to get access to the code for those who are interested.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:yeah, right by speedtux · · Score: 1

      That's an obvious but incorrect analysis. A security audit does not require the same kind or level of understanding that porting and maintaining code does.

    6. Re:yeah, right by jvkjvk · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they can also demand the developers write the source on 24K gold tablets but that also won't happen. What large system do you suppose has the money to comply with fully commented and documented. If it's not there now, it won't happen for the Chinese. It wouldn't happen for the US Government, if we had such a requirement. Many businesses don't have the capital to complete such a money loosing proposition.

      I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse.

      For things like Microsoft's products you may be correct but not many other companies have the bandwidth to have a team of chinese engineers audit their code...

      At a startup I used to work for, we "inherited" ~3mil lines of code, solaris/x windows/motif/oracle only backend and an NT only, hm these days you'd probably call them an "agent" of some type. If we had been forced to comment and document that before we shipped 1.0 we would have most certainly never shipped. The project I work on today would tank if we needed "fully commented" code before selling it to the government, much less if we had the government do a source audit and "explain anything that may be obtuse." I can just think of trying to explain simulated annealing, linear programming, markov chains and the like to a GS-9 assigned to review our codebsae while we're trying to ship a release (we are always trying to ship a release).

      So, I imagine they'll get what the companies have, or some minimal set above what they currently have, and as little as can be gotten away with.

    7. Re:yeah, right by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now just how stupid is that? If you can get the Windows source code, the "security through obscurity" position is blown out of the water. And you still don't get the benefit of community patches and such.

    8. Re:yeah, right by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying or trying to say? My point was that there are a variety of ways to get source for Microsoft products. Nothing more than that. I am *hoping* that you're not advocating security through obscurity? The reason that the code is kept under wraps (NDA agreements and such) is to ensure that their work isn't copied. It isn't for any other reasons, that I can think of, and I really hope that it isn't being done in the name of security by anyone. I don't even think Microsoft themselves have ever implied that the are closed source because it keeps their OS more secure.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:yeah, right by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I am *hoping* that you're not advocating security through obscurity?

      No, but one of the frequently used arguments about why Open Source is not supposedly not secure is that it is much easier to find security holes with source code than without.

    10. Re:yeah, right by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Bah... And some people believe that it is okay to kill people who don't have the same religion that they have. I think it is quite possible to have security in either environment and that if enough people are looking at open source software they are *probably* more likely to notice problems and find corrections. With closed source you have to trust. I don't mind some level of trust though I personally depend on a variety of code sources to do my best to layer my protection.

      As I'd read some of your other comments and you seemed to have a level head I wasn't sure where you were going with that. Thanks for explaining.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. The big question. by upuv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do companies think that the market in China is big enough to justify giving them the source code?

    It doesn't really matter what foreign governments think of this. The can scream all they want. If a company thinks the Chinese market is big enough and they want a piece of it. Then they will cough up the code.

    Privacy, security and IP rites are second tier considerations when it comes to product sales.

    So again. Do companies think that the market in China is big enough to justify giving them the source code?

    1. Re:The big question. by Alistair+Hutton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do companies think that the market in China is big enough to justify giving them the source code?

      If they give away the crown jewels they might be surprised how swiftly China starts supplying itself.

      --
      Puzzle Daze is now my job
    2. Re:The big question. by timmarhy · · Score: 0

      they are letting the government look at the source code. it's a fine difference but an important one. it's not like they are handing over the source to the chinese people, a select government department will review code and give it the tick of approval. this is all because the chinese are paranoid as fuck about backdoors and forgien governments, not some kind of endorsement of OSS.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:The big question. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you build your hardware in a country notorious for having shadow shifts at factories, and then give away your source code as well, what makes you think there'd be any market left for your products?

    4. Re:The big question. by ozphx · · Score: 1

      MS gave the Chinese govt access to the Windows source in 2003. It hasn't led to the downfall of MS yet... ... oh wait, I'm getting a PM from someone called twitter... ;)

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    5. Re:The big question. by thermopile · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nah, I don't think the Chinese government actually believes they can go through with this. This is a bluff; a giant bargaining chip. Start out asking for something untenable, then in negotiations, trim your requirements back until you end up with something that's only a very good deal.

      China is the world's largest importer of raw materials, and the world's largest exporter of finished goods. As they nation (and economy) grows, China needs to ensure that it has good access to those finished goods that it cannot make in-house. I suspect, by May of next year (when the "source code" thing is supposed to be implemented), China will have secured trade agreements with Japan, the US, S. Korea, and everybody else it cares about, guaranteeing a certain level of fancy high-end electronics with a low tariff.

      China's not stupid. With a growing market of 1.3B people, it can threaten to do something insane, and other countries have no choice but to offer great deals to pacify the Chinese Tiger.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    6. Re:The big question. by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Speaking for myself, China is so far much smaller than I expected for our tech product, and smaller in proportion than any other market. We speculate about why: perhaps the attitude in China is, why wouldn't we do it ourselves?

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    7. Re:The big question. by gullevek · · Score: 1

      China is growing to be the biggest Market for luxury goods. Already know more luxury cars are sold there than anywhere else. China is growing. The company that misses out, will miss out a big share. I think they will comply.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    8. Re:The big question. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there is absolutely no way the Chinese representative could copy it.

    9. Re:The big question. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      MS has maintained Security Through Obscurity in their source code by making it so obtuse.

    10. Re:The big question. by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      And paranoid for a good reason, IMO... there are a lot of people with a lot of hate on for China. Really, any government should have this attitude.

    11. Re:The big question. by xristoph · · Score: 0

      It's already happening anyway... companies involved in big high tech projects in China have to factor in the fact that they may be copied and that there's nothing they can do about it. They will just have to know whether it's worth the risk. For most companies it is - China is just too big and growing a market to ignore, and if the company doesn't go in, a competitor will - whatever the rules.

      Examples are plentiful, one comes to my mind: the German Transrapid (yeah, I know, it has its own problems too) was bought for Shanghai Airport-City connection, and part of the deal was that Chinese engineers play a major part. Guess what, there is already a copy being produced in China. Same is happening for cars, btw - didn't take long for copies to hit the road.

  6. Don't like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't do business with them if you don't like it. The Chinese concerns are valid, the hyperbole response is lame.

  7. Cut them off. Draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will balk. The more they tighten their grip...

  8. Give 'em different code if you need to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If someone thinks China is a big enough market, the Chinese-market goods can simply ship with their own damn set of code, API's, and even unique board revision if a company worries about it that much.

  9. I hope there's zero compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies. They can pirate the hardware but reverse engineering the rest is harder. What's next them demanding chip manufacturers hand over chip templates to "make sure they meet China's standards".

    1. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Don't like the market economy much now, huh?

      Haha bitch!

    2. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ``China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies.''

      Well, for starters, they can "demand that everyone hand over technologies", too. That's a choice you can make. There is nothing preventing you from competing with China there. If the choice you make causes you to lose, it's not because something is preventing you from competing with China - it's because you competed, but China won.

      That leaves the cheaper labor. And, frankly, if China has cheaper labor, that's an advantage they have. So if they win, based on that, it's not because something is preventing you from competing - it's because you competed with China and China won.

      So, really, your "How can anyone compete?" is a bit misplaced.

      Perhaps a more interesting question would be how to get desireable results, given what China is doing, but that would require you to, first of all, define what results are desireable.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "China is out of control.."
      Haha!.. I think China is controlling YOU!.. How about dumping the US treasury bond they hold and shooting down the $?.. Okay they will lose a big share of their actual reserves but the US will get royaly screwed! Now, then CAN dictate they terms when dealing with US (and more generaly western) corporations

    4. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies. They can pirate the hardware but reverse engineering the rest is harder. What's next them demanding chip manufacturers hand over chip templates to "make sure they meet China's standards".

      Do you think our government should use their chips without making sure they meet U.S. standards? It has never failed to amaze me that any nation would blindly trust software and hardware made in another.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    5. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously? I think every other government implicitly trusts that the technology the rest of the world uses is good enough to get the job done. Spy agencies should have higher standards, but I somehow doubt Intel M$ clear each one of their designs with the NSA every release. If you can point me to a statute from another government that demands what China is supposedly demanding, I'll concede the point.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    6. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is out of control. How can anyone compete if they have cheaper labor and can demand everyone hand over technologies. They can pirate the hardware but reverse engineering the rest is harder. What's next them demanding chip manufacturers hand over chip templates to "make sure they meet China's standards".

      Swedish (you know, not Switzerland, technically advanced Scandinavian country, with a very, very small home market, ABBA, beautiful blonde girls that beat the crap out of you if you behave like a sexist American) companies had the same trouble with USA during the 50-80s. Big country, not very technically advanced, but with a huge home market and cheap, unorganised labor with few rights. The result -- lots and lots of cheap pirated goods. Especially during the Vietnam war, when Sweden didn't export anything of even remotely military use to USA. There are still some US made weapons based on stolen Swedish designs. Textile industry used to be one of our base industries. Their technology ended up in first US and then south asia. Now we don't have a textile industry anymore.

    7. Re:I hope there's zero compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of open source and open standards at the US Department of Defense is in the national interest and the interest of national security, according to a report from the DoD's Advanced Systems and Concepts office.

  10. Fuck China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bunch of idiots. Boycott chinese products and don't export anything to China. While you are at it pull the plug on Internet access.

    1. Re:Fuck China by meist3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bunch of idiots. Boycott chinese products and don't export anything to China.

      Uhhhm, good luck shopping for clothes then. Or furniture, or kitchen appliances, or electronics.

    2. Re:Fuck China by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Firms will move to supply the increased demand for those things once the source is cut off. We have unemployment issues over here anyway.

      It's not like we don't know how to make that stuff. We just built the factories elsewhere.

    3. Re:Fuck China by meist3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firms will move to supply the increased demand for those things once the source is cut off. We have unemployment issues over here anyway.

      Help me real quick, how can you keep building a TV that is sold for 600 bucks including margin when your employees cost dozens of times more than what you are currently paying? Don't you think that before someone says "Great I'll just sell my stuff for ten times the price, people will know it's the right thing" someone else simply co-operates with the Chinese or other country to get cheap-labor done? This has no impact whatsoever on your local employment market. Well, unless you live in India, Pakistan or the Ukraine.

      It's not like we don't know how to make that stuff. We just built the factories elsewhere.

      Uhm yeah? Because the companies didn't want to pay for all that health insurance stuff. In my country, companies threaten the government to move production out of the country and the laws are made accordingly. Tax cuts on revenue tax and corporate taxes are forced on us that way. It's not like we don't know how to make that stuff ... it's just too fucking expensive to make the kind of profits that we're used to and have promised to the investors.

    4. Re:Fuck China by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      No. You said "good luck buying" those things, in response to the OP's suggestion of a boycott.

      If there was a successful boycott of chinese-made or foreign-made products, the issue would eventually correct itself.

    5. Re:Fuck China by meist3r · · Score: 1

      Like I explained briefly in the comment before there can't be a successful boycott of Chinese-made/foreign-made products. Even if you boycott one you would have to buy it from another. And in our world today ... sorry to break this to you ... no one can produce solely by themselves. Even if we boycotted China on a large scale someone would have stuff produced in China and then sell it to us branding it "Made in Belarus" or whatever. Since people are used to a certain standard, can't be forced to buy something more expensive, there's no way you could regulate the market in a way that would equalize prices in a fashion that you could sustain your quality of life -not without using totalitarian control structures. It's simply impossible in todays world to produce the quantities of goods for the prices people are willing/able to pay all by yourself. No one in the US has the capacities to produce enough electronics let alone clothes to supply the entire US market and all their economic partners. You COULD maybe, but none of the business people is willing to give up his profit and work cost-effective only. We live in interdependency. Our systems have developed into hybridized solutions. China can't live without the money from the US, the US can't live without the range of affordable products from China. Without China/Asia the US/Europe wouldn't have any affordable consumer electronics. What you're talking about is a post-dystopian world where only rich people can afford the few expensive goods that can be produced locally. That's not how our market works and it's nothing that I want to try imposing on the world. Sorry.

      What you mean by "successful boycott" and "correct itself" is large scale economic breakdown, inflation, famine and death. Maybe not for Americans but at least for the poor factory workers in China. Read something about economic interdependency. The "we will be autonomous, fuck everyone else" position doesn't work here anymore if you want to keep up. Look at North Korea or Cuba ... two totalitarian states that locked themselves out and through boycotts, embargoes and their own stupidity are largely separated from the world. They're not exactly the top of the economic success spectrum and their people aren't to fortunate either. A "boycott" in the classical sense nowadays can mostly only be a very specific, small range, short term means to signal the market. I doubt the US could survive even half a decade all by themselves. No imports whatsoever ... good luck with that success story.

    6. Re:Fuck China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then we'll lose those Everyday Low Prices!!!!!

    7. Re:Fuck China by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      or even the "little" stuff. It used to be Walmart was full of the stuff. Now, I go to HD or Lowe's even screws nuts, bolts are from there. Yesterday I bought a 3/4" plastic water valve and guess where it came from? Frankly, I'm confused. How can it be cheaper to ship something as simple to make as a nut all the way around the world cheaper than it is to make it here? Maybe they use inferior metals, like when they added melamine to milk. I wonder what the price of chinese goods would be if we started testing everything to make sure it wasn't watered down?

    8. Re:Fuck China by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Uhhhm, good luck shopping for clothes then. Or furniture, or kitchen appliances, or electronics."

      You know...if someone would start making high quality clothes, furniture and especially kitchen appliances in the US again, along with customer service in the US (would be nice to speak the same language as the customer svc. rep) I'd be very enthusiastic about buying that product at a higher price.

      I can't imagine I'd be the only one here to do that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Fuck China by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "e live in interdependency. Our systems have developed into hybridized solutions. China can't live without the money from the US, the US can't live without the range of affordable products from China."

      You know...we did just that...just a few decades ago. There weren't that many imports in the 70's and even into the early 80's. Not like there is today.

      We did it fine 20-30+ years ago with mostly US made products, we just need to move back to it. I for one would pay more $$ for completely US produced and made products. I think it would make for a great marketing campaign...especially with all the toxic products coming out of China (toys, milk...etc).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Fuck China by Tenshi+Goei · · Score: 1

      Sure, we'd pay more, but we'd also be sending less US dollars overseas, keeping the value of our currency higher.

      At least when factories are located here, our wealth stays here.

      While it sounds a bit mercantile, what we're paying for is human labor, not goods. And with unemployment being a problem, we need those jobs here.

    11. Re:Fuck China by meist3r · · Score: 1

      I think it would make for a great marketing campaign...especially with all the toxic products coming out of China (toys, milk...etc).

      Again. toxic products like electronics. That precious iPhone would be a thousand bucks w/o the carrier contract if it was made in the US. You don't believe that Microsoft could stem that whole Xbox360 project with even higher hardware manufacturing costs? Imagine every RROD cost 50-100 dollars in labor alone to repair.

      I agree with your idea of local production I personally prefer that too but 20-30 years ago the US was the main innovator in technology and many big companies produced in the country. Nowadays we heavily rely on other countries that do the dirty work for us. I'm from Europe and we have huge parts of our industry that are almost completely outsourced. I doubt that we can just "move back" simply because the system we have established is founded on the idea that we can use the resources we don't use for production to add value to our work which enables us to pay for outsourcing production in the first place.

      And if you think about it, this situation of dependence has huge benefits. Not only monetary but social and political also. If you rely on a country for production of goods you are less likely to attack that country for military reasons and you can see all the time that nations like the U.S. shape their foreign policy according to these factors.

      Take human rights in China, during the olympics there have been terrible scenes but the mainstream media overall didn't even touch that iron because any conflict with the producing nations could lead to export stops and rising prices. Criticize the wrong ruler and your trade connections go down the drain. Why do you think nobody attacks Saudi Arabia? It's the role model society of Islam and several "terorrist" groups are said to have ties let alone organisations there. Hey isn't bin Ladens family Saudi? If the OPEC wasn't so important don't you think there would already be tanks over there? If economy is good for one thing, then it's connecting different peoples and cultures in a relationship of (peaceful) trade.

    12. Re:Fuck China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the EPA put in such stringent standards on US steel plants that virtually all of them were forced to close their doors and move operations overseas.

      You have to thank the EPA for forcing virtually all of our steel smelting, alloying, and other heavy industries to China. Yes, our air is cleaner here... but the steel that isn't made here is now part of our shackles.

    13. Re:Fuck China by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "And if you think about it, this situation of dependence has huge benefits. Not only monetary but social and political also. If you rely on a country for production of goods you are less likely to attack that country for military reasons and you can see all the time that nations like the U.S. shape their foreign policy according to these factors."

      That's my other VERY important reason to think we need to do something to bring back manufacturing to the US. We should not let ourselves be beholden or dependent on any other foreign govt. just for that precise reason...we could be leveraged or blackmailed on policy.

      It is bad enough the chinese have us by the balls with the debt they have on us, they've already flexed that muscle lightly once or twice.

      Our govt. should pretty much do away with corporate taxes....make this country a haven for business, both intellectual and manufacturing. In the long run..that would be in our best interest..sure our labor is a bit higher, but, make the offset to be things like quality (well, US made used to be, maybe we could be again), and tax friendly. Give huge reasons for US companies to stay here..hell, cut them a tax break for every US citizen employed ON US territory.

      Yeah, the fact we don't make anything anymore...really bothers me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Fuck China by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      What we need to do is relax immigration restrictions and relax the minimum wage. We need to make more economic incentives to "join America," so that maybe we can get a little closer to ending all of the world's bullshit nationalist philosophies.

    15. Re:Fuck China by asretfroodle · · Score: 1

      You don't think businesses have tried to do this? They usually struggle, because too few people are willing to pay the higher price. Or they end up cutting quality to try and keep the production cost down.

      Price is a much bigger issue for most people than it is for you.

  11. Open Source or Else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So China demands source code from manufacturers, yet we still run our elections on closed-sourced voting software...

    I understand that it's just a political move, but a part of me feels like, somehow, this is all very wrong.

    1. Re:Open Source or Else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry about the voting software, the Chinese government will check the results for you and they'll tell you who has won.

    2. Re:Open Source or Else by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      the Chinese government has checked the results for you and they'll tell you who is going to win.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Open Source or Else by MooUK · · Score: 1

      "Who is going to win", if known for certain, is already "who has won". Especially if rigged.

    4. Re:Open Source or Else by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Three laughs for every joke:

      On Monday, when you hear it,

      On Tuesday, when someone explains it,

      And on Friday, when you get it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Open Source or Else by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      No, actually, they'll let you vote. But they'll only give you the options (or option) they want.

      Quite a while ago (may be last year), I went to their offical site before trying to look for some "news" they have on some topic. And there, I see them conducting some polls/votes. So, as a Chinese, I'm curious on what's there and see if I can contribute my opinion in the polls. Then I see bunch of funny votes.

      For example, one of the poll question asks what do you think about a specific government administration move. The question is good. Then I see their 4 options. All four options express an "I agree" opinion. The only difference between the four options is the level of agreement (agreed, good, great, excellent).

      Another poll example listed in the same place ask you what do you think about soem other specific government action. Just like the poll above, all the options are "agreed". This time, the differences between the options is not the level of agreement. This time, they all start with something like "support" or "agree", and then each list out a reason of why you support or agree.

      So... I think you're wrong. They can let you vote. Just that they won't give you an option they do not want. (In fact, there are actually election test points in some very small low level municipalities. Not saying those are successful... but... there are...)

  12. Biased view of the world have we? by mrboyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • When RMS wants the printer driver source code it's freedom protection.
    • When the chinese government wants his printer driver source code their trying to embezzle the gentle and caring westerners...

    I thought source should be free?

    I know American are scared, losing world leader status, economy going down the drain, hockey mom for vp and everything but seriously it's a great move on the Chinese government that you should be applauding. You should be hoping it will be replicated by ALL other governments and that distributing the source becomes an habit for HW manufacturer.
    China has its issue (police state, freedom of the press...), but they seem sometime to have the balls to go where no other lobbyist sponsored government in the "free world" would go and when it's a good move at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize it.

    1. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by justinlee37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've committed the common fallacy of supposing that there is some kind of "average" slashdot user, who represents every user, and believes every opinion that has ever been expressed on this message board. Obviously that can't be the case. Anybody like that would have to contradict every one of their own opinions.

      On the actual issue, it's not a "good move" because they are probably doing this to control the populace; if they know the source code for the hardware on all consumer electronics, there's no way that people could find some way to communicate with the outside world on "unmonitored" channels, probably on a proprietary hardware network separate from the standard internet.

      Keeping that source code out of chinese hands is imperative in empowering the chinese people to determine their own destiny. This isn't a software patents issue.

      You should make it "an habit" not to confuse the issues. And stop assuming everybody here is a cookie-cutter version of everyone else.

    2. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it is the motives of the Chinese government that most worries people. The Chinese government certainly doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to stealing things (whether it be piracy on the high seas or piracy in it's own country [regardless of the more recent RIAA/MPAA financial alliance]).

      I would like to see the Chinese government insist that their own native businesses release source code (to the public; business, governments, etc) to ensure that there are no dubious security concerns. It would be in character of the Chinese government to play the hypocrite here.

    3. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by syzler · · Score: 1

      American are scared, losing world leader status, economy going down the drain

      How exactly does an article published on a Japanese news site about a Japanese company (Sony) relate to American insecurities?

      Maybe a better question is how does Japan keeping source code for its devices closed prevent the US from loosing world leader status, help support the economy, or alleviate concerns about a VP candidate?

    4. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A governor of a state with a multi billion dollar budget and thousands of employees is far more qualified to be VP than a former community organizer who has barely spent any time in his day job (Senate) because he's too busy campaigning is to be President.

    5. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      Wait, what?

      That second paragraph of yours is rambling nonsense.

    6. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by aleph42 · · Score: 1

      The difference is, when RMS wants the source code, it's to give it back to everybody, not to get an adventage against his competition who does not have it.

      It's like privacy: there is no incoherence in asking both for privacy of citizens and footage of police arrests. Democracy is not giving privacy to police force during their work, and open source is not giving sources to governments.

      Code to the people, privacy to the people, power to the people.

      --
      Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
    7. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's rambling nonsense from a different angle than the OP's rambling nonsense, and I think he needed a wake-up call. You can't call an entire messageboard hypocritical like it's some fucking hive mind.

    8. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      PS But think about it, if we started communicating with chinese citizens via infrared SMS text messaging, we could send them things bypassing the "great firewall." Maybe things about the Falun Gong, or Chinese torture practices, or some nonsense about "freeing Tibet?" My hypothesis is that the gov't wants to make sure that no new "smartphone" like devices have messaging capabilities on new transmission mediums. Controlling the flow of information in and out of the country has always been a staple of communist governments.

    9. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by jamesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      * When RMS wants the printer driver source code it's freedom protection.
              * When the chinese government wants his printer driver source code their trying to embezzle the gentle and caring westerners...

      I'm not sure you understand the concept of 'freedom' in the context of open source.

      RMS wants source code to be released free for everyone.

      The Chinese government (according to the extract provided in the slashdot summary...) wants to be able to inspect the source code for their own purposes (with the possibility implied by the article authors that they might then seek to gain from it).

      The former is embracing freedom. The second is not.

      I know it's fun to point out hypocrisy in American (or other Western) cultures, but make sure you have your facts straight first.

    10. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've committed the common fallacy of supposing that there is some kind of "average" slashdot user, who represents every user, and believes every opinion that has ever been expressed on this message board. Obviously that can't be the case. Anybody like that would have to contradict every one of their own opinions. ... ... And stop assuming everybody here is a cookie-cutter version of everyone else.

      I mainly agree with the spirit of your post, but I had to say something about this little blurb: There are topics on Slashdot where a majority of the people who post agree. This is also reflected in the moderator pool. It is rather common for these opinions to be enforced via mod-points. For example: If you were to travel back to the year 1999 and post on Slashdot that 'Microsoft kills babies', that post would rocket up to +5. If you were to then post that 'Linux could use a little improvement in this particular area...', that post would disappear into a sea of other -1 posts. The specific attitudes change over the years, but the underlying principle always remains. That's why sometimes you really have to walk on eggshells with certain opinions to avoid your posts disappearing into oblivion. People who happen to be on the majority's side of opinion could make a great speech and get cheered for it. Now, here's the funny bit. Everybody's post comes with its own little score. There are a fair number of active posters who posture themselves to raise that score, appealing to the majority view. These are the guys that come in and say things like "I just want a phone that's just a phone!!!". All these people get talkative on certain topics, whether it be praise or waving of pitchforks. And Slashdot, which is ad-supported btw, caters to these people with stories that are going to interest them.

      Slashdot most definitely has a voice, some call it the GroupThink. Some people have taken offense to this, but really, the "but there's one guy that doesn't agree!" argument just doesn't apply. It's not an absolute term, it's just about majority. Generalizations always suck, right? Well, okay, but through the natural path of posting on Slashdot, you have to pick up these generalizations if you want to post your opinion without too much trouble. (I personally blame the moderation system for giving power to those with extreme opinions. I think it illustrates why vigilantism is illegal.)

      In any event, Slashdot does have opinions. If you'd like to test that theory, wander into an iPhone thread and say it's the best phone ever. ;)

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by ozphx · · Score: 1

      Oh no! How long have they had access to the source code to GNU/Linux? This is a SERIOUS ISSUE. If they've been looking at the source to Linux then TERRIBLE THINGS may have already happened!

      Maybe someone should quickly go and check that the code is still free? I'm very very worried about this.

      On the other hand, perhaps OP is a fucking retard? They want to see the source. Is this not exactly what we have been demanding of our governments? So China does it, and suddenly we are speculating on their motivations, and having a great big cry about how they'll steal teh codez.

      Fuck me, what a bunch of hypocrites.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    12. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by mrboyd · · Score: 1

      There are a fair number of active posters who posture themselves to raise that score, appealing to the majority view.

      What if... those posters where actually expressing their very own views and it happened that it was shared by some moderators.

      The problem with the moderation is that most people use it as a vote to upmod post that are in sync with their personal opinions or belief system while they should use it to highlight properly constructed post that actively enrich the debate. Can it give fair result in a polarized environment such as this one?

    13. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      OSS movement says: Give the source to everyone (including China).
      China says: Give the source to us or you can't sell your product here.

      The former is a request for the greater good (from the OSS movements point of view).
      The latter is a demand for the good of the Chinese government.

    14. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

      agreed but the constitution doesn't say that the president needs any experience - he can even be a mostly absent junior senator who was a community organizer....

    15. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      ple. The Chinese government certainly doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to stealing things (whether it be piracy on the high seas

      Okay, WTF are you talking about: "piracy on the high seas"? I don't recall the Chinese government issuing letters of marque.

    16. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by zenyu · · Score: 3, Informative

      RMS wants source code to be released free for everyone.

      The Chinese government (according to the extract provided in the slashdot summary...) wants to be able to inspect the source code for their own purposes (with the possibility implied by the article authors that they might then seek to gain from it).

      The former is embracing freedom. The second is not.

      I think that is a very important point. I've heard Eben Moglen talk about this. To paraphrase his take on the Free Software is Communism meme: Yes we do share some of the goals of communism, such as no child should be denied an education, but our methods are the polar opposite from that of Communist states. We rely on voluntary sharing to achieve our goals not the power of government, not only is this method successful with information because the costs of duplication are negligible and the positive network effects of sharing are immense, but we also don't believe the ends justify the means. We only want to use means that are moral and just irrespective of our goals.

      But I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill here, if you read the article you'll see that China is only demanding the software to hardware crypto devices. All real crypto devices use public algorithms. And this software is already made available to all Western governments, Western ones just get the source by putting the source code requirement into procurement contracts. Since China is not asking for the VHDL for the hardware they have no hope of using this source for reverse engineering the devices, all they can do with it is check for the most obvious of illegal back doors.

      Yes, it's wrong for the Chinese government to obtain this information by fiat rather than by the sugar of a procurement contract or a court order _after_ a crime has been committed. But this is not very news worthy, China has an authoritarian government and it has had one for as long as I've been alive. This is how authoritarian governments do things, in an authoritarian state when you refuse a customs search you are forcibly searched, in a liberal democracy they send you and your belongings back to where you came from. This permeates throughout the whole society. Writers here on /. are ascribing all kinds of nefarious motives, but I bet the motive is exactly the same as when their own government looks at this source code. It has nothing to do with reverse engineering these public algorithms and everything to do with looking for back holes. China is just using the same authoritarian methods as other authoritarian states; remember the US, Russia and France still have laws on the books banning the export of strong crypto to their 'enemies', left over from more authoritarian times. The US even has a recent history of serious proposals for much more draconian regulation of crypto, remember the Clipper Chip? Remember how you had to jump through hoops to get Netscape with a paltry 128-bit key support just so that it would take 5 minutes for a criminal to get your credit card from an online transaction instead of you broadcasting your banking information completely in the clear?

      The article is also complete garbage. The article ends with some silly babble about how Microsoft has made their money by keeping it's source code a secret. Any large purchaser can get their hands on the source code to Microsoft's released products, the Chinese government has copies of it, so does your government. I've even had a Microsoft evangelist _beg_ me to look at the source to help them with a driver problem.

    17. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      • When RMS wants the printer driver source code it's freedom protection.
      • When the chinese government wants his printer driver source code their trying to embezzle the gentle and caring westerners...

      I thought source should be free?

      I know American are scared, losing world leader status, economy going down the drain, hockey mom for vp and everything but seriously it's a great move on the Chinese government that you should be applauding. You should be hoping it will be replicated by ALL other governments and that distributing the source becomes an habit for HW manufacturer.

      China has its issue (police state, freedom of the press...), but they seem sometime to have the balls to go where no other lobbyist sponsored government in the "free world" would go and when it's a good move at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize it.

      Applauding the Chinese government suggesting they are doing this for "the greater good" and not for their own benefit, comparing to RMS, my god please.

      Like China already doesn't have the biggest counterfiting industry in the world. Last time I check RMS has crossed that line and stole code.
       

    18. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly confident you'll agree that whilst many will be voicing their own (agreeing) views, some will be pandering to the groupthink.

      It should also be mentioned that people of a certain mindset do tend to congregate in places with a matching groupthink.

    19. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been no secret to me. However a simple Google search would have helped you.

      While the practice seems in decline now that China continues its march toward ascension to the World Trade Organization, recent years have seen Chinese patrol boats foray deep into international waters in search of "customers." When a suitable vessel is located, it is ordered to heave to and follow the patrol boat back into Chinese territorial waters. Once inside a local Chinese port, the vessel would be impounded for "suspicion of smuggling," with both cargo & crew held for ransom.

      http://www.cargolaw.com/presentations_pirates.html

      The Petro Ranger, valued at $16 million, was restored to Alan Chan's Petro Ships in Singapore, but the company lost cargo worth $2.3 million to the pirates and the Chinese authorities. Alan Chan blames the Chinese for abetting the piracy.
      - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n24/glas01_.html

      etc and so on...

    20. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by th1nk · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth...I'm in China right now on a business trip and hardly anything is blocked. People seem to think that the Chinese government has some sort of master control over all the information flowing in and out of the country and that is just not the case. I have been denied on maybe 1% of the sites I've tried to access. All major Western news sites are freely available regardless of content. The Chinese people are certainly not being sheltered from the rest of the world's information.

    21. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subject: The hundreds of Anglo-American replies here. Learn to read better.

    22. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a better question is how does Japan keeping source code for its devices closed prevent the US from loosing world leader status

      Or maybe a better question is, how the fuck can you still spell "losing" wrong after being corrected so many times?

    23. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by ozphx · · Score: 1

      The latter is a demand for the good of the Chinese government.

      Presumably the Chinese government are doing this to look out for the interests of China, and the people they represent.

      Its a sad state of affairs when Americans are complaining that the Chinese government isn't looking out for the interests of American citizens. I also find it quite amazing given the huge amount of closed-source voting machine crap going on, classified material being lost on the London tube, etc, that people are worried that "the evil commies" might leak some source code to Chinese companies.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    24. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      Required in china almost... almost implies that the actual manufacturers/designers will at least need to be able to _find_ their source code. Believe me, it will matter quite a lot.

    25. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who Slashdots the Slashdotmen?

    26. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      a simple Google search would have helped you.

      "China piracy" just finds thousands of articles about copyright and such. Some things are swamped in "simple Google searches" unless you already know exactly what you're looking for.

    27. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described very well the proverbial "echo chamber" that is Slashdot...good job!

    28. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Define community organizer, please.

    29. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      try adding "high seas" to your search terms

    30. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Ghubi · · Score: 1
    31. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah. That was the point.

    32. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      try adding "high seas" to your search terms

      Hindsight is very clear.

    33. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I'm assuming that nearly every one of the millions of Chinese on the net has some form of voice chat program (eg MS Messenger) - how would all of those be watched? On top of that you have the VoIP where it's easy just to dial a very long number from an ordinary phone and talk to somebody on a mobile phone in China for 3c/minute. There are probably a few million people outside of China dialling in that way. The resources to filter this traffic would be staggering and are just not worth it to even an autocratic government.

      I really don't think it's being done to repress the people by restricing information. That ability was lost a decade or more ago and reversing it would hurt the bottom line far more than would be allowed. I think the source code issue is more about paranoia of backdoors and tampering like the cold war trick of using malware to break a Russian oil pipeline. Personally I think it is a good idea. Some of the "security" on some of the closed source devices I've seen is ridiculous to the point of having the company name as a password that can never be changed - and that was on a cash register! Opening it up to peer review will hopefully stop some of that stupidity.

    34. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I think that there is in fact quite a diversity of opinion on this site. A great many threads have rebuttals and counter-rebuttals running many levels deep, without any poster ever posting a second comment. If there is any consensus, it mostly has to do with most posters coming down on the side of common sense.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    35. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If there is any consensus, it mostly has to do with most posters coming down on the side of common sense.

      I'd like to have had your experience on Slashdot, cos that ain't been mine. What I run into is everybody thinking they're right and fighting those battles even after being proven wrong. (or simply disappearing as if they didn't get the notification that there was a response.) If common sense actually factored into it, I probably wouldn't roll my eyes so much around here.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    36. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      • When RMS wants the printer driver source code it's freedom protection.
      • When the chinese government wants his printer driver source code their trying to embezzle the gentle and caring westerners...

      I thought source should be free?

      First of all, HA! our economy tanking is causing everyone else's to tank as well, so we're all in the same boat. We won't lose our world leader status due to our bloated, out-of-control military budget.

      But yes, the source should be available, just like blueprints for buildings are, just like electric schematics for home appliances are, just like the chemical formulas for the drugs we take are.

      Oh, and the 'hocky mom' hasn't made it to VP yet either.

      So the way I see it, your one On-topic comment was spot-on, but your Off-topic comments were wrong. Just another reason to stick to the topic & off your soapbox.

        I know American are scared, losing world leader status, economy going down the drain, hockey mom for vp and everything but seriously it's a great move on the Chinese government that you should be applauding. You should be hoping it will be replicated by ALL other governments and that distributing the source becomes an habit for HW manufacturer.

      China has its issue (police state, freedom of the press...), but they seem sometime to have the balls to go where no other lobbyist sponsored government in the "free world" would go and when it's a good move at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize it.

    37. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      But RMS doesn't need the printer driver source code. He wants the specs on how to manipulate the parallel port (well, USB port now) to talk to the printer to make it do things. That way, you or I can do whatever we like with the printer we own.

      Not an insignificant point.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    38. Re:Biased view of the world have we? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > I don't recall the Chinese government issuing letters of marque.

      That would be privateering, not piracy. It is piracy only when no recognized government sanctions it.

      Of course, when one does, it is an Act Of War (hence usually issued when one state is already at war with another).

  13. Western movie by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    "Your source code or your life!"

    I can see this being effective.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  14. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by jellybear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. Unless you want to make it illegal to give source code to the Chinese, there will be some companies who will comply because it is better for their bottom line to do so.

    They are doing by legal fiat what the open source community has failed to do through voluntary cooperation, namely, boycotting products that don't provide their source code. Ironically, this autocratic move could be a boon to open source.

  15. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by upuv · · Score: 1

    Well put.

  16. That would be insane to do by cheros · · Score: 3

    I fear an official must have been misunderstood.

    This would mean that China is asking any supplier to lay down their IP to sell in China with the following risks:

    - claims of other nations that the supplier supports Chinese intelligence in bypassing their product (read: NOBODY will buy)
    - duplication of the product (China stealing the IP and making its own, which is something it has been repeatedly accussed of in the past)). It's hard enough to bring out anything these days without some US patent troll trying to get a slice of your life's work so avoiding China would thus appear to be a good move.
    - leaking any real or alleged deficiency to the rest of the world (espionage and politics is a seriously filthy mix together).

    I think this generations of badmouthing China coming home to roost in combination with the shenanigans of the Bush administration which has evaporated the last smidgen of trust in them doing anything NOT self serving. Whereas the main flaw of the previous administration was an overfondness of interns, they did have good international relationships and thus trade, a degree of trust and a budget surplus. Whoever votes to keep the current clowns in place will be ignoring the fact they they CAUSED the problems, making the US a virtual pariah that nobody trusts, turning a surplus that would have helped everyone when deployed into a ginormous black hole that will take decades to recover from.

    I can fully understand China not trusting anything coming from the US because it wouldn't be the first time the US administration sells something with a backdoor. (look for the story about Swiss Crypto AG if you want an earlier example)

    The most immediate result of this policy would be that only second rate products would be offered to the Chinese, offers by people that feel so little confident about their product that they will happily give away the crown jewels to get a few bucks. There are better ways.

    I suspect someone hasn't been quoted right. I'm sure they meant to say they would require full audits of any company supplying security gear, and that company should be in a trusted nation (if such a beast exists, but that's my theory).

    They could combine that with what a large quantity of Arab banks have done over the last few months: eject everything US sourced. I've heard of banks even throwing out Messagelabs because it's American (no kidding). No idea if that led to an upsurge in Linux desktops, though..

    The thinking behind the demand is good. Implementation, however, could be better.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:That would be insane to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      throwing out Messagelabs

      This is not a bad thing, throw them out because they're shysters (I know someone who used to work for them, if you were a company you'd get a huge virus and span flood one day, then just out of luck, a messagelabs rep would happen to be passing within the week....)

      I'd like to think the world is getting less reliant on the monoculture of various software suppliers, but I doubt it'll really happen, at least not in the western world.

  17. China - no limit to their arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I buy security equipment from a company who gave the source code to the Chinese government?

    The tatoo artist down the road is tatooing 'Idiot' on peoples forehead for free - that sounds like a better option.

    1. Re:China - no limit to their arrogance. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Why would I buy security equipment from a company who gave the source code to the Chinese government?

      Because it shows that company is confident enough in their product that they believe nobody will break it even with access to the source code? The Chinese government already have the source code for GPG, TrueCrypt and OpenSSL. Doesn't stop people using them.

      A good crypto system should have one secret and one secret only: the key. The workings of the cryptosystem should not need to be secret. In fact, it's better that they be open - that way everybody can examine it and confirm for themselves that it is sound. A closed-source cryptosystem - well, you've only the vendor's word for it that the algorithm is any good.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:China - no limit to their arrogance. by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this software is closed source so nobody gets to see if it has backdoors or security flaws except for the people who have been historically the least trustworthy and most incompetent (governments).

    3. Re:China - no limit to their arrogance. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government already have the source code for GPG, TrueCrypt and OpenSSL.

      Do I have the source code for the chinese government's *cough* enhanced versions of those?

      A closed-source cryptosystem - well, you've only the vendor's word for it that the algorithm is any good..

      And that's exactly what you'll get, once they've, umm, recompiled it. Or do you seriously think that they'll abide by the GPL? Yes, it is a lovely bridge, isn't it...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:China - no limit to their arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you use the chinese government's *cough* enhanced versions of those?

    5. Re:China - no limit to their arrogance. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If those are embedded in my hardware I'd never even know, would I?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. a cold day in hell first... by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I used to work in a CE firm that manufactured in China and sold across the world - reverse engineering was a particular problem and IP protection was the talk of the day.

    And now they demand source code? Well I can assure you that it will *not* happen.

    I hear Hungary and eastern Europe are offering particularly cheap factory sites - and this might persuade some firms to relocate.

    Honestly you cannot make this stuff up. I suspect they will allow manufacturing in china of export goods with no access to source code (to protect their national growth and wealth), but only "approved" population control devices will be allowed to be sold inside China (to spy on their own citizens) - it's control freakery gone mad. This would allow them the best of both worlds, after all its no secret that China has various special economic zones (and they are huge) to allow export factorys to undercut everywhere else in the world - so they just make export rules different.

    We really are a joke to them, I remember the hilarious conversations we used to have about IP in Shenzhen with the local engineers, they have no concept of it at all. Its all fair game if they can work out how we did it. Of course, that never stopped them abusing our own system by buying as many patents as they could and hitting us over the head with them on one side, whilst copying everything we did on the other. And now they will try and demand the source code as well? No matter what safeguards they pretend to employ corruption is a business tactic out there and the information will be just another market to exploit. I remember sitting at a conference table with out local contact (who we found out was also employed by the client) taking both sides of the argument as well as two pay checks, literally forwarding out confidential information to competitors because they paid him to do so. NDAs, contracts and so are meaningless.

    Yes I am rather bitter and annoyed about it years later, and I accept that they are probably not all like that and things *might* of improved.

    1. Re:a cold day in hell first... by ringo74 · · Score: 1

      That's good, maybe they can get rid of this bogus concept of IP for us!

    2. Re:a cold day in hell first... by Bert64 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So, you want to take advantage of cheap chinese labour, but don't want to pay the "hidden costs" of using chinese labour?
      If you don't like it, manufacture your goods somewhere else.

      If you try and change the way the chinese do things, then the costs will be dragged up too and chinese manufacturing will end up costing the same as any other country. Leave china to those who are willing to play by it's rules and accept the costs.

      You have to decide wether the cost of corruption and copying of designs etc is outweighed by the lower manufacturing costs or not.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:a cold day in hell first... by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      We really are a joke to them, I remember the hilarious conversations we used to have about IP in Shenzhen with the local engineers, they have no concept of it at all. Its all fair game if they can work out how we did it.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    4. Re:a cold day in hell first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and things *might* of improved."

      What does that mean?

    5. Re:a cold day in hell first... by love_encounter_flow · · Score: 1

      really reminds me of american business practices my father used to be exposed to in the 1960's and 70's over here ("out there", to you) while working for a german manufacturer. "out there". hah. hey i can see russia from my home.

    6. Re:a cold day in hell first... by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      ...and the worst part is that there is really nothing you can do about it. Westernerns has gotten used to being at the top of the food chain. Not so anymore. Countries that some of us still consider as third world country will be doing the talking in a few years. And they'll outsource their cheap production to... Alabama?

    7. Re:a cold day in hell first... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      We really are a joke to them, I remember the hilarious conversations we used to have about IP in Shenzhen with the local engineers, they have no concept of it at all. Its all fair game if they can work out how we did it.

      While I think that we need to have some sort of protections like copyright and patents, I think that the concept of "intellectual property" is not useful. The purpose of copyright and patent protection is to encourage the useful arts and sciences. It does not exist to create intellectual 'fences' around ideas so that some person or corporation can make unlimited amounts of money forever on their intellectual creation. Copyrighted works and patented concepts must come back into the public domain after a relatively short period of time, just as the Founding Fathers envisioned it when they wrote the Constitution. This is what helps to advance arts and technology.

      The point of copyright and patent protection isn't to provide companies with unlimited capital, but to encourage them to create new works and new technolgies that benefit everyone.

      To think otherwise is an abomination.

    8. Re:a cold day in hell first... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And now they demand source code? Well I can assure you that it will *not* happen.
       

      With china slowly becoming the dominate market in the world it might get mighty cold soon. I doubt many companies will be able to afford not to.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re:a cold day in hell first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...corruption is a business tactic out there and the information will be just another market to exploit."

      #Sarcasm#IP has never been used to leverage the market, exploit it, and create corruption at every level of our economy.#Sarcasm#

      Pick any country with IP laws and you will find corruption.

    10. Re:a cold day in hell first... by khallow · · Score: 1

      IP is not a source of corruption. Pick any country and you will find corruption.

    11. Re:a cold day in hell first... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is when only one side gets to do that.

    12. Re:a cold day in hell first... by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      And now they demand source code? Well I can assure you that it will *not* happen.

      Unless you have a very honest and disciplined owner/executive board it will happen. But don't worry.

      I was in a similar situation in the last 3+ years. Management was looking for excuse to get rid of people. Wanted source. Gave it to them, even walked them through compiling it. That was three years ago now when they outsourced it to India. I was since RIFed.

      Today, 3 years later with 20 times the development staff it is 2 years behind schedule and 5 times over budget. It is a critical application for 1/3 of their fortune 500 business. Worse yet, it still doesn't work for the new changes needed. To add, they no longer have the modified sources.

      Saved a dime and spent a buck. They are so screwed they don't know how bad. People are afraid to ask or tell. It is open sources biggest strength and I can't blame China for wanting to see compilable source without the NSAKey nonsense. Would you want someone in DC pushing buttons on a Chinese nuclear sub?

  19. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What makes you think the source code will be publically available outside the government (and perhaps select "partners" who will help them "understand" the source code?)

  20. I'm not so sure by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2, Informative

    So you would have no issue if Bush, Blair, Putin or any other government figurehead demanded that companies hand over their source code?

    Comparing RMS to the Chinese government is apples and oranges. Our culture/society is based on the idea that we are free to choose (albeit, sometimes with consequences) many facets of our lives and businesses.

    I, personally, believe that open source is a better process from a software development standpoint. That being said, I also respect that companies are free to choose their licensing and business models as they see fit (within reason, of course). RMS is saying that he wants the source to be free, whereas the Chinese government is demanding it.

    Isn't this the same country that has been sending picture frames with viruses embedded to infect USB drives attached to them? They're making demands without having the common courtesy to pretend to have the moral high ground. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:I'm not so sure by mrboyd · · Score: 1

      I admit i replied a little bit outside of the point and with some disregard to the actual article source and or content. I also recognize that my comment has been inspired by my very own impression that chinese bashing has become an olympic sport in our western culture. French or American.. same.

      I don't see why you're differentiating between RMS demand that the source be free an the chinese demand to have access. In one case you don't get access to RMS controlled environment (gNewSense is it?) and in the other case you eventually don't get access to the chinese market. You're right companies are free to chose their business model and clients are free to request different conditions. It's still the prerogative of a country to decide what can or cannot cross it's border and under which conditions.

      Would you see it differently if they had said that every pharmaceutical product should have it's formula disclosed and be tested by the chinese government before being released for sale in their country? Happens like that in Europe at least.

      I'd be happy if Bush, Blair, Puttin, Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad and King Abdullah did the same. I still strongly believe it's good. Not because I believe the Chinese government is up to any good. I don't even believe they are doing it for anything but their own benefit. Whether it's internal security (Which I believe) or corporate espionage (Which can happen since China's government is heavily corrupted and anything you give them will eventually leak.) or something else like baiting us to see how much power they have actually acquired in the market.

      What I hope is that it will have a snowball effect and encourage other government to do the same. Because the US, Japan, Russia, Brazil and Iran for all I care will realize that relying on un-trustable platform for anything put them somehow at risk (perceived or real) and finally I hope that in time it will trickle down to the private and corporate consumers. For that to happen someone had to start asking for the source. It's the Chinese. Fine with me.

      Someone said that preventing Chinese to access the source code was for the benefit of the Chinese citizen. I don't believe it will have much impact either way. Somehow it seems they managed to police their country quite well already and sometime with help from western owned interest. In my mind it's somewhere up there with the people who think PGP should be banned because terrorist might use it.
      If a chinese freedom fighter gets his hand on the IOS source at least he'll know that there's no intercepting trojan on his router. see.. works both way.

      Onto the moral high-ground, ask someone from another country (Doesn't matter where you're from) what is wrong with yours and then see who has the moral high-ground. Chances are no one has it but everyone believe he does. The US have the Irak war and Guantamo fiasco to answer to the "fascist" chinese internet proxy and political activist arrest. Chinese are still waiting for the Japanese to apologize for the Nanjing massacre and so on and so on.

      Sending stuff out with virus has happened countless of time, that kind of story is recurring at least on slashdot and I doubt it's been done out of anything but carelessness.

      Ok, now I seriously need to go back to work... :)

    2. Re:I'm not so sure by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      So you would have no issue if Bush, Blair, Putin or any other government figurehead demanded that companies hand over their source code?

      Not only would I have not issue with it, I would think them dolts if they didn't. Computer security has become so vital to a nation's interests that no country should be running any hardware or software without knowing exactly what it does and how it does it.
       

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:I'm not so sure by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you see it differently if they had said that every pharmaceutical product should have it's formula disclosed and be tested by the chinese government before being released for sale in their country?

      That's a perfectly sensible thing for them to do. How else would they check it has sufficient toxic additives?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:I'm not so sure by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Just a minor correction here, since there have been four successive posts with this misapprehension:

      Blair is no longer prime minister of the United Kingdom.

    5. Re:I'm not so sure by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      My mistake, I thought that he might have left office right before I typed that up, but I was too lazy to check my facts :).

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  21. Ummmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you live in a world where you believe everyone has the same motives, well then I hope when you get burned by that view it is in a way that doesn't hurt you too much. People are perfectly justified in calling in to question the motives of various entities. For example if your family doctor tells you to remove your clothes because he needs to perform a complete medical check, I think it is reasonable to trust him. His motives are most likely pure. However if a random guy in an alley with unkempt hair and a crazy expression asks you to do the same thing, I'd say you should probably question his motives, lest you end up getting hurt.

    You are also mistaken that various governments haven't seen the source to commercial products. Microsoft, would be an example. The Windows source code isn't secret. It isn't public, but it isn't secret. Many organizations, including universities, have it.

    The reason people find China's proposition scary is because of their track record. For example if you search around on the web you'll find that counterfeit Cisco gear form China is fairly common (often called 'Chisco'). It looks similar to real Cisco gear, but it of inferior production quality, and is of course unsupported. China has a very poor track record with regards to ownership laws and thus it is reasonable to call their motives in to question.

    There's also a big difference between believing in open source, and believing in ripping people off. Let's not pretend that it doesn't take a lot of work to write good code. If you want people to be able to do that work as a job, they need to get paid. However if what you support is for company A to spend lots of money writing it, and then company B to just rip it off and give nothing back, well you'll find that doesn't work. Open source works only when everyone contributes. If you have a bunch of people/companies that spend a lot of time and money to make something, only to have it ripped off, well they can't afford to keep doing it.

    So the problem isn't with a government wanting to see source code. I think you'll find that the US government verifies the code for anything used in critical systems. The problem is that the Chinese government does not have a good track record on this kind of thing. Thus I (and others) question their motives. I don't believe it is really about openness. I do not question RMS's motives. I believe he really just wanted openness.

    1. Re:Ummmm by KGIII · · Score: 1

      For example if your family doctor tells you to remove your clothes because he needs to perform a complete medical check, I think it is reasonable to trust him. His motives are most likely pure. However if a random guy in an alley with unkempt hair and a crazy expression asks you to do the same thing, I'd say you should probably question his motives, lest you end up getting hurt.

      Best comparison ever.

      Yes, yes... Redundant. I still had to say it though. I still find it odd when I see "thank you" type posts being modded redundant. But, well, I had to post this one and don't mind the -1.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Ummmm by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "For example if your family doctor tells you to remove your clothes because he needs to perform a complete medical check, I think it is reasonable to trust him. His motives are most likely pure. However if a random guy in an alley with unkempt hair and a crazy expression asks you to do the same thing, I'd say you should probably question his motives, lest you end up getting hurt."

      Oh PLEASE!!

      That is just the kind of negative thinking that is keeping WAY too many women fully clothed in both public and private.

      Please quit spreading around this kind of FUD, so that we can have more good looking chicks to be ready and willing to get naked on a more regular business.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  22. What about China giving out the source? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    You know, it's not like Chinese companies haven't been at the top of the list at gpl-violations.org pretty much since energy began condensing into matter.

    Don't buy Chinese equipment unless it comes with full source code.

  23. Will this broaden with time? by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

    Could this broaden with time to include, non-security software or even Operating Systems? If so, Microsoft could find it's way out of a LOT of sales, not that most of the copies of Windows in China are legal...

  24. Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Chinese government is well within it's rights to make decisions regarding what goes on within it's borders. Infact, the whole purpose of a government is to put the interest of it's own country first above the interest of any foreign power.

    In this case, seeing the source code of electronic devices being sold in China is very much in their interest, why should the chinese government trust foreign corporations to supply black box equipment when they have no idea how it works? There are many people who boycott products, at least in certain areas, where they don't have source code... I wouldn't run an internet facing server on anything for which i didn't have the source for many reasons.

    If you don't like it, noone is forcing you to sell or manufacture your products in china. If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else... If you want to take advantage of the large customer base in china, as well as the cheap labour costs then you have to play by chinese rules.

    Ofcourse, this policy is also beneficial for those companies who already release their source code, since they're already compliant.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      I agree that China can enforce laws within it's borders and it is not as if this is some form of extraterritorial laws forced upon third parties rather along the lines of USA laws dealing with third parties trading with Cuba.

    2. Re:Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government is well within it's rights to make decisions regarding what goes on within it's borders.

      Of course it's in their rights. What idiot would say otherwise?

      Countries do, however, have issues bigger than themselves to keep in mind... How onerous rules like this will affect their standing in the WTO for instance, and hence, their entire market for exports.

      In this case, seeing the source code of electronic devices being sold in China is very much in their interest,

      Stealing from you is very much in MY interest.

      What happens when companies refuse, the WTO gets upset, and China ends up crippling their own economy? Gee, what's in "their interest" isn't so mindlessly simple and cut and dried, now is it?

      why should the chinese government trust foreign corporations to supply black box equipment when they have no idea how it works?

      For the same reason they can trust ANYTHING ELSE supplied by foreign corporations... Warranties, service agreements, et al.

      If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else.../blockquote>
      I'm not sure if you're throwing up straw men left and right to make a point, or if you really are just so banal that you have to constantly restate the plainly obvious.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      This won't cripple china's economy, china is big enough that companies cannot afford to boycott them...
      Sure it would cripple a smaller and less significant country, thats why companies can afford to push some countries around, they cant do that to china. Cutting ties with china on the other hand, would significantly hurt other countries, so they will fight tooth and nail to have this law changed, and failing that be forced to go along with it.

      Service agreements and warranties very rarely apply to software... A piece of hardware will usually be guaranteed to work and perform its advertised function for a specified period of time, but software typically comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTEE... In which case, you really need the ability to fix it yourself if necessary.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      This won't cripple china's economy,

      In fact it most certainly could.

      china is big enough that companies cannot afford to boycott them...

      No. China is EXPECTED to become big. Right now, the per-capita is so low that, even having so many people, they can't hope to match the buying power of even a small country in the more developed world.

      Cutting ties with china on the other hand, would significantly hurt other countries

      Cutting off a trading partner will always hurt. However, "other countries" would take a short hit, and quickly rebound. China, however, would be DEVASTATED in short order, as their economy immediately slips into a depression, with no hope of growth. Their domestic economy is based on government subsidies, trying to prop-up local tech enough that they won't need those damn foreigners for everything. But they're not there yet.

      Besides that, seeking penalties from the WTO doesn't require cutting all ties. Even a small country can use its weight to cause severe penalties to be imposed, which must be paid on risk of losing ALL free trade.

      but software typically comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTEE

      This is the Chinese government we are talking about. They can MUCH MORE EASILY require that software be guaranteed to work, than they could force companies to release their proprietary magic.

      Besides, a piece of important software is very easily replaced piecemeal, as needed. Software becomes most important when combined with hardware, as is more and more often the case. 747s come to mind.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Don't like it? Don't do business in China... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government is well within it's rights to make decisions regarding what goes on within it's borders. Infact, the whole purpose of a government is to put the interest of it's own country first above the interest of any foreign power.

      I disagree. The Chinese government doesn't have that right. It doesn't even have the right to exist.

      In this case, seeing the source code of electronic devices being sold in China is very much in their interest, why should the chinese government trust foreign corporations to supply black box equipment when they have no idea how it works? There are many people who boycott products, at least in certain areas, where they don't have source code... I wouldn't run an internet facing server on anything for which i didn't have the source for many reasons.

      Stealing Chinese assets would be "in my interest" too. China has no legitimate concern to know what happens inside electronic equipment. This is a massive grab of intellectual property. You can bet they'll be a lot more stingy when it comes to protection of their own intellectual property.

      If you don't like it, noone is forcing you to sell or manufacture your products in china. If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else... If you want to take advantage of the large customer base in china, as well as the cheap labour costs then you have to play by chinese rules.

      No. You have a third option. Apply pressure to China till they change their policies. While I imagine China has considered how to bypass the WTO, that would still be the first approach. I think it's pretty clear that China is merely coming up with creative trade barriers to protect local industry (and to loot the IP of any sucker that complies with the law).

      Legally, there's little preventing China from pursuing any whim. It is a nuclear power after all. But there are repercussions to these sorts of sleezy manuevers.

  25. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by meist3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are doing by legal fiat what the open source community has failed to do through voluntary cooperation, namely, boycotting products that don't provide their source code. Ironically, this autocratic move could be a boon to open source.

    Wha wha whaat? The open source community says:
    "Hey we're writing tools, everyone should be able to participate so we release the code for free"

    Companies say: "We build specialized applications and machines that would ruin us if everybody knew how we do it, under no circumstances will we give away the implementation of X that we've spent millions of R&D on."

    So you say the second one will be happy to give it's source code to the Chinese? You must be bleeding from both eyes right now.
    The reason why China does this is clear: Cheap technology, you cut out the research and development costs and go straight to production. That's what they mainly do anyway, all the stuff we send there to have produced cheaply now backfires. You got the manpower and the facilities all you need is something to build. They did the same thing with the Maglev train from Germany. They send engineers to work with the ICE speed train team, the team went to China to do material research and quality checks etc. and once the Chinese had enough the contact was interrupted and a couple of months later they introduced their own Maglev train ... that looks almost exactly like the one from Germany, bases on the very same technology. That's your altruistic Open Source project right there.
    *shakes head*

  26. Don't see this as a victory of F/OSS by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    Because its not. The Chinese Government wants the source code for themselves, not to share it with the public. So don't you dare try and compare this to anything RMS would say. More than likely, the Chinese government is going to use this to spy on its users.

    It sorta makes me sick. Makes me really wish the Chinese government would fall.

    1. Re:Don't see this as a victory of F/OSS by doub_l_heli · · Score: 1

      You are right they want it for themselves, they are an end user not system developer that would be required to share. One foot in front of the other, there Zombie Ryushu. I was looking through all the interesting toys I have in my place and they are all made in China, almost without exception. If they were to plant bugs it would be quite trivial. I am confident they wouldn't topple my third world government by listening to me sing in the shower. Truth be told even Microsoft submits its Windows source code to Chinese government after all money talks. As for your prayer I too wish justice for the Chinese people in a way that does not bring harm to the Chinese people.

    2. Re:Don't see this as a victory of F/OSS by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Actually, as open source products are compliant by default they actually profit from this new regulation by not having to do anything.

  27. Now that we're China's bitch by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    ...there's not much we can really do about this. Soon, if not already, they can either buy the manufacturers or just make their own stuff.

    N.B. This really has nothing to do with Free Software or Open Source Software. They want the source, but aren't planning to release it generally.

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  28. The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Expect to see more Sorny goods if this goes ahead!"

    Maybe not. Maybe: "Expect to see a lot of counterfeit products labeled Sony, in the same kind of packaging Sony uses."

    Ever since the days of the DOS operating system, when it was only the Taiwanese who supplied computer parts, the Chinese have been extremely dishonest. They would deliver computer parts until a distributor got established. They would get paid when a load was delivered to a ship in Taiwan. But, the would eventually deliver a huge load of junk, stuff that had failed testing but had been saved for that purpose. That would put the U.S. distributor out of business.

    At the same time, there would be a Chinese distributor in town that just began doing business, selling the same items.

    Now that everyone has paid to build factories and complicated procedures in China, they are very vulnerable to Chinese control.

    Here are a few stories, chosen from thousands. The Chinese governments, in Taiwan and mainland China, have always pretended to be interested in stopping counterfeiting:

    FBI and Chinese seize $500 million of counterfeit software.

    Dangerous Fakes: How counterfeit, defective computer components from China are getting into U.S. warplanes and ships.

    YouTube videos about Chinese counterfeiting

    The World's Greatest Fakes: Chinese Copies Are Making Their Way Back To U.S.

    Heparin Find May Point to Chinese Counterfeiting

    Chinese Product Counterfeiting Causes US Job Layoffs

    1. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by ozphx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, just like the west is very serious in cracking down on copyright infringement. An outsider would see the US govt's complete lack of dealing with mass scale copyright infringement as collusion. Leaving it to the copyright holders when theres such widespread infringement? I would say they aren't even pretending to be interested.

      I'm in China right now. The majority of the "fakes" are misapplied trademarks. They work nothing like the real item, and often look nothing like a real item from the Brand.

      You'd have to be a complete moron to be suckered in.

      The other end of the scale is when the factory owner lets the Gruntmaster production line run for an extra hour or so and slaps "Oinkmaster" on the side. I've picked up a few "grey-market" items this way - identical to the branded product.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    2. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by ThinkTwicePostOnce · · Score: 1

      Nonsense! I'm sure they've got plans to go totally with 1-person 1-vote democracy,
      and they just want to make sure the voting machines won't elect George Bush!

      --
      Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
    3. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      They can already rip you off without the official source, and they do.

      You fly over for some Joint Venture meeting, hand them a product sample, the very next day they say, "Thanks, but we've decided we don't need to work with you", and a week or so later they're churning out practically the same thing for cheaper.

      As for the stuff they are asking for:

      From the article: "Products expected to be subject to the system are those equipped with secret coding, such as the Felica contactless smart card system developed by Sony Corp., digital copiers and computer servers. "

      Maybe they're wondering if anything else was sneaked in along with the anticounterfeiting stuff in digital copiers ;).

      Would you want to know whether there are "special cards" that always get access? Or as a government wanted to have such special cards?

      Or maybe they wanted to see if there's a difference between the source and what they already have seen for themselves in the hardware. They could have found backdoors already, and wondering whether they are officially in the source code.

      --
    4. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Since many of these "counterfeit" products are made in the very same factories, by the very same people, with the very same machines as make the "original" products once the orders for originals have been filled, I cannot say I have much sympathy for the western brands involved. They decided to make their brands of such low quality that the difference between counterfeit and genuine products has become academic. People do in fact care about quality when buying, but the sad fact is for all their markup, many western goods simply do not offer much over "knock offs". Case in point; DVD players.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by Teriblows · · Score: 0

      yup, forced joint ventures to do business in china= being ripped off from the start.

    6. Re:The Chinese are VERY dishonest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement is completely different than counterfeiting.

      Copyright infringement is when you sell the same identical material without paying the owner. Counterfeiting is when you actually make a different product.
      For example, if I copy a Britney Spears CD and sell it, that's copyright infringement. If I hire some chick to re-record the song and try to pass it off as Britney Spears, that's counterfeiting.

      And it IS easy to get 'suckered-in', especially when the fake chip is, for example, just one of the controlling chips on a motherboard sold under a reputable name.

  29. Say no to security through obscurity by doub_l_heli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A hacker worth his salt should be able to exploit any kind of technology. All the rest of us demand is openness on the part of technology makers that are already protected by patents. Typically the path of least resistance is the easiest to exploit. China, as an outsider in to the rest of the world, is suspicious of the rest of the world so why shouldn't they demand transparency. As a positive side effect it benefits the rest of us and the FOSS movement.

    1. Re:Say no to security through obscurity by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Just because the Chinese government gets a look at the source doesn't mean that we will too. That part is not clear.

      As I understand it, major governments do get access to source code for the products they buy. The difference here is that the government is demanding the code for everything that is sold within their borders.

  30. China has been doing this for the past 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The chinese government opens it's borders to foreign companies if they are willing to share the blueprints of key components of that industry. They have demanded construction blueprints, machinery schematics, manufacture process information and even end product components. They, meanwhile, have used that information to develop their tech grasp and have incorporated those designs on native industrial enterprises. That's the secret behind China's ultra-fast development and the main reason behind the plague of chinese knock-off products.

    This is nothing different. It's simply another step in the ladder. They developed (stole is more appropriate word) enough to have gained the capability to produce advanced electronic components like processors and now they are refining that knowledge and taking the next step. Get ready for a capable dragon chip.

    It is only a matter of time (probably not even 5 years) before China becomes not only self-sufficient but also competing for the lead in the world's high tech industry, all thanks to capitalism and the good folks who brought you the globalization and outsourcing experience. Were all those cheap goods worth the loss of western values like democracy and freedom of expression?

  31. putting thier own back doors in by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    it's the first thing i thought. this might not be about viewing the source to check for security, in fact it can't be - any software is going to have security flaws in it. i think this might end up meaning a chinese special edition, complete with government backdoors. face it, that kind of thing is right up their alley.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  32. You want to sell to them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So sell with what demands they make.

    Just because they can get the western world to bend over and take their EULA reaming, doesn't mean that everyone else must.

    And such devices would be copyrighted elsewhere, so if they did use the source code in their products for export, they can be banned quite easily.

    And, if they use them for internal markets only, then they can ignore copyrights ANYWAY because copyright is granted by the country. And do you think that China COULDN'T reverse engineer your product and take its "secrets" with it anyway? That way you don't even get the sales.

    So why are you so pissy with China NOT sucking the cock of corporates with software?

  33. Maybe people are missing this... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    But we aren't just talking about drivers here, I imagine we're talking about hardware description language code as well.

  34. Good move by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1

    Now the companies providing said hardware are in effect forced to open source the drivers of their products. This might very well result in linux support from manufacturers which previously refused to support it. On another note: Microsoft hates this, simply because Microsoft's control over the market gets damaged by this (Something China wants to happen).

    1. Re:Good move by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Now the companies providing said hardware are in effect forced to open source the drivers of their products.

      Open means anyone can see it, modify it etc. What will happen in this situation is that the number of parties having access to it will double - from 1 to 2.

      This might very well result in linux support from manufacturers which previously refused to support it.

      I'm sure that's exactly what the Chinese government wants it for, yes. And my pet unicorn agrees.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Good move by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Afaict they are only required to give the source to the chineese government not to open it to the general public :(

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  35. Try those posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you can't because you make this assertion based on being impossible to be proven wrong (unless we invent a time machine).

    Way to go!

    I would say that if last month you posted a "MS is wonderful and Vista is the best by far" you'd be bumped up into +5 territory almost immediately because your other MS workers in the same cube has been told to do it.

  36. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by zsau · · Score: 1

    Using free software is probably the easiest/safest way for many companies to comply with this ruling. Everyone wins.

    --
    Look out!
  37. Predator, boa constrictor by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And you thought China won't bother to flex its muscles?
    Now, when US is very vulnerable. Reap what you sow.

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
  38. Sudden outbreak of common sense ! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that's finally someone who gets it. Apparently, Chinese want to take security seriously and finally say out loud that having black boxes managing your network is not the way it should be done.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  39. It probably IS collusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "An outsider would see the US govt's complete lack of dealing with mass scale copyright infringement as collusion."

    I agree. It probably is collusion, because of U.S. government corruption.

    1. Re:It probably IS collusion. by insignificant_wrangl · · Score: 1

      No, it more likely ignorance. Many US politicians have no conception of intellectual property law.

  40. Supply obfuscated source by syousef · · Score: 1

    Easy. You can supply obfuscated source and claim it is the original. Some of the source code I've come across has looked like it was run through an obfuscator anyway.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  41. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this an example of Prisoner's Dilemma?

    I see the game like this:

    5,5 0,2

    3,1 0,0

    If Corp A and China uphold their end of the deal, then everyone benefits modestly. I'm calling this a (+5, +5) benefit to both parties.

    If corporation A cooperates with the Chinese Gov't and release the source code and China "defects" by making knock offs, Western Corporations are hurt, and China gains immensely. Big fat 0 for A, +10 to the Chinese. However, I factor in China losing the trust of other companies for a short term gain; thus they lose immensely in the future, since no one will want to cooperate again. I am calling this 0 benefit for Corp A, and a very modest +2 gain to the Chinese.

    On the other hand, If China cooperates, and western companies don't sell the Chinese goods, western companies still benefit from sales elsewhere, and China suffers marginally, but still gets by doing there own thing. (+3, +1)

    If neither party cooperates, corporations can still make money else where, and china suffers. This is a wash (0, 0).

    So, in fact, this is the OPPOSITE of a prisoner's dilemma game. It isn't a dilemma at all...since everyone has the proper incentives to cooperate with each other...the Nash Equilibrium is stable at +5, +5 since this is where everyone is maximizing there utility. A defect costs way too much in the long term and in a game that is played more than once.

  42. Only under teh condition that China stop...... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... using melamine and other toxic chemicals in not only their exported foods, but their domestic foods.

  43. P.S.: unless it uses Open Source anyway by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    An important exception I forgot...

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  44. Leave the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say fuck China and the WTO. Leave the WTO and tax the hell out of any imports so that it's cheaper to make it domestically. Go back to strictly individual country by country trade agreements where both sides can agree to mutually beneficial trade.

  45. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by Peaker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like the world is richer by a few trains then...

    Why is that so bad?

  46. Read the linked stories. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The majority of the "fakes" are misapplied trademarks."

    You ignored the stories linked in the grandparent post.

    Here's another link, about deliberate poisoning of food to make more money: Filler in Animal Feed Is Open Secret in China.

    And another: Melamine in pet food may not be accidental.

    1. Re:Read the linked stories. by ozphx · · Score: 1

      I didn't ignore the stories. My point is that although fakes exists, when you step into a dodgy market, such as the dodgy phone store in this city 95% of the phones will be the general local phones, designed and manufactured locally. Then you'll find the phone avaliable with a Nokia/Sony/Whatever sticker on the front.

      The other 5% are phones that are clearly mimicing a popular design: Motorola has a flip phone with a transparant flip, a local generic brand offers a similar looking phone, which is much smaller.

      Keep in mind that China has 1/4 of the worlds population, and are probably responsible for a much larger percentage of manufactured electronic goods (anyone want to find a figure here? 75%?).

      So its not entirely unsurprising that the majority of infringment occurs in that country. Its like writing an article stating that black people are responsible for most of the crime in Africa. It is a nonsensical, utterly useless, sensationalist statistic. Its designed to sell adspace. Its an epic troll, if you will, and you are falling for it hook line and sinker.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  47. Chinese or American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe simply the Chinese want to make sure no spyware has been put by the Americans... Not like a NSA/CIA-big_american_corpo secret deal has never been seen.

  48. Sorny Sucks by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    I prefer Panaphonics.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  49. Like my grandfather, Hung Dong Wang, told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He said, boy, never trust anything without the source. I think he was ahead of his time. He was chinese, before the communism came, in the long, long time before.

  50. Yeah, Right by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    Ok, I often think that the anti-China hype is a lot of hot air propaganda intended purely to turn China into the new Russia-of-old but this is just daft. Yeah. Right. Hand over source code for all hardware. Sure. Let's get right on that.

    Even if this wasn't from the Chinese government which, even in the best light, is a not-good government, and was instead from some "good" government that really did want the best for citizens, this would still be a bad idea. They may really want to use the source code for beneficial reasons. They may want to use the code to make sure people are safer and the world is a better place. But, people run the government and people are notoriously stupid. All it takes is one government employee with their head up their ass to accidentally leave the harddrive with all the source code in their unlocked car and have it be stolen or some other daft and moronic way of having state secrets slip into the hands of the unscrupulous. This is a situation where the motives of the government (which, of course, are going to be suspect at the best of times) don't matter in the least because the competency of the people who make up the government ensures that this is a "very bad idea"(tm).

  51. If we play this right, this might be our chance... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...to finally get much hardware to work with Linux.

    I'm sure you know how much gray channels have their source in China. The Russians provide the cracks and the Chinese supply the world with cracked versions, or so I'm told.

    So if someone in China leaks all that source... an you can be assured that it will leak... then we can finally understand the interfaces and implement the drivers.

    My hope is, that nVidia, AMD/ATi and intel will decide to still sell to that market and give them the source. Then when they notice the leakage, it's already too late, and 1. we have enough information to implement fast graphics card drivers and 2. china will develop knock-offs for their own market, which then strangely find themselves for a fraction of the price, in your local computer store.

    Oh, and hopefully, nobody tries to go to war over it, or we might be fscked. But hey. at least we all finally got our 8x dual-chip-card Crossfire setups at home.. in our bunker basements. :D

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  52. You need to read his whole message. Really. by argent · · Score: 1

    So, you want to take advantage of cheap chinese labour, but don't want to pay the "hidden costs" of using chinese labour?

    What part of "I hear Hungary and eastern Europe are offering particularly cheap factory sites - and this might persuade some firms to relocate." did you miss?

  53. What is the actual target? by argent · · Score: 1

    Products expected to be subject to the system are those equipped with secret coding, such as the Felica contactless smart card system developed by Sony Corp., digital copiers and computer servers.

    All of these have DRM built in, either explicitly or in things like the anti-counterfeiting code in copiers. Are they targeting all software, or do they mainly want to be able to bypass DRM restrictions?

  54. As a Chinese, by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    I feel disturbed by the news. I view this as a suicidally silly move.

    Remember, you are *trading* with foreign guys. When you trade, play fair --- or at least *appear* to be fair. You blatantly demanded everybody else to hand over you the source, so now everybody else can claim the same thing over you, or even more.

    By the way, I am rather suspicious at TFA (yes, I know this is Slashdot and nobody cares about it). It was posted on the website of Yomiuri (Japan's number one newspaper) but I can't even find which guy on earth wrote it. TFA also failed to make clear reference to the source of the story and use cover-all phrases like "the Chinese government said ..." or "according to the source" without telling us where the source actually is. It is so obscure that I highly doubt its credibility.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  55. New empire, new rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As China is taking over the spot for the #1 economy on Earth, it is starting to change the rules of the games. Simple like that. Just like all #1 economy used to do it in the past.

    Former #1 economies won't really like the new rules of the game and probably China will not offer the same what she demands. It's obvious, that sooner or later the #1 economy will transform from copycat and will start to produce the original cutting edge products and it is yet to be seen if China will open up the "source code" to others, as she demands now. My bet: no way.

    China is demanding this from the #1 economy position at a time when USA has managed to screw up completely her own economy. It's amazing, how the USA made the similar mistake within two decades what made the fall of the USSR, by destroying their very own economy, even if they did it with different kind of stupidity.

    It is a real concern of course, that the #1 economy is a Communist political system. The former #1 economy made great deal of efforts to ignore this fact and say that changing economy in China will change the Communist political system. Well, Wall Street collapsed while the Chinese Communists have not even blinked.

  56. Back Street Corners by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "i have this nice shiny ipod here..."

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  57. Common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who post these so called "news" - have some common sense.

    So Intel/AMD can't sell CPUs in China anymore because they have to give the source code?

    What is China going to use???
    Same goes for a lot of other things.

    Stop degrading this lovely site for posting naive and flame bait stories.

    1. Re:Common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dragon CPU.

  58. domestic sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even if you try to just stay within the US, the stuff you invent and make and market will get cloned rapidly and start to be sold here at half price. No way to avoid it either. It put my boss out of the inventing business for the most part, he used to design and patent specialty tooling and devices for agricultural purposes, he gave up some years back, he said sometimes it was a matter of mere weeks or a couple of months before clones of his devices appeared on the market, once he started shipping. They must have a huge effort out there to buy and reverse engineer new products. Now all he does is prototype until he gets a good model, call his old established customer base and get pre orders, build exactly that amount, then that's it, no more. He doesn't even bother with either a patent if applicable -he calls it pissing away ten grand for no reason to get a patent now- nor larger mass production because of that short window before the chinese clones show up. For all practical purposes that has put at least one good domestic manufacturer out of business doing that stuff, because we have no controls at the border and all the trade treaties are routinely circumvented. And this isn't crap software or business process stuff, these are real tangible and practical goods. It is stifling invention and progress to the detriment of our own society.

  59. Doesn't that street go both ways? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    How 'bout if everyone else on the planet (ha! as if...) would demand, en masse, the source code of all Chinese products, including virtual (i.e. network-delivered or resident) products. I'm not talking about items built in China by non-PRC entities, but Sino-designed and constructed products. No source, no import license.

    Of course, the practicality of this is non-existent - Americans (especially, but not exclusively) are addicted to cheap 5h1t, and the only source for that right now is Zhngguó.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  60. This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they make it a requirement to not just disclose the source to them, but to everybody. It should be every consumer's right to know what the thing they're buying does with their data.

    Security threat? Bullshit. For security, use encryption. An encryption algorithm that isn't open source is defective by definition, because it evades proper peer review. All experience shows that closed source isn't more secure but less. And vulnerabilities are found the hard way: not by testing the code, but when the exploit hits.

  61. I think that's underway already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a feeling a number of people will have very harsh sentences for this one. I don't know Chinese law, but wilfully causing the death of so many people may lead to the death penalty. After all, they didn't exactly care about killing others either.

    The Chinese have to build trust. The morons who have done this will be dealt with, I'm sure.

  62. One sided assumption by cheros · · Score: 1

    Umm, you write as if you believe that industrial espionage is only inbound in China.

    Why do you think the US likes to tap as much of the world's communication as possible? I hope you don't buy the myth that this is exclusively to look for Osama buddies..

    AFAIK, about the earliest example of IP theft from China is silk production, but I may be wrong.

    Back to the topic: I think what China is asking for is unrealistic if they really need good products. I can see what they're trying to achieve, but nobody with a REALLY good product is going to do this because that's commercial suicide in more ways then one.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  63. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about? First, ICE isn't maglev. It's a conventional high-speed train, known for some devastating train wrecks because of sloppy quality control. Not exactly cutting edge anymore.

    The Shanghai maglev train was built by the German Transrapid consortium (Siemens + ThyssenKrupp). It's the only successful implementation of a Transrapid worldwide. Germany will probably never get one, because of corporate price-rigging that went too far, plus an accident that had little to do with the technology. So Transrapid must be thanking the Chinese on their knees. They would be out of business without them.

  64. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't give those snakes-in-the-grass a damn thing they ask for-you WILL regret it. The Chinese authorities are well known for saying one thing and then IMMEDIATELY doing the other.

  65. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    What makes you think the source code will be publically available outside the government (and perhaps select "partners" who will help them "understand" the source code?)

    Well, leaks will happen, but I think it is more the other way around. If you need to give away the proprietary source to a potentially insecure organisation, you may decide that you will just skip that market. OTOH, you will really want to figure out how to get access to a maret that big. Then, suddenly one of you engineers shows up to work one day bragging about how he got Linux running on your FooBocker 9000b, and you realise you can ship to a major market and not care about giving away the source code.

    Net win for open source.

  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  67. FUCK China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their goddamned fucking xenophobic totalitarian government is to blame for the fact that they can't innovate anything competitive on their own, so of course they have to resort to ripping everyone else off and flooding the world market with their substandard ripoff crap. What's worse is that not only would giving them source code to everything make it easier for them to eavesdrop and control their own citizens but also to attempt to destabilize the economy of the free world as well. All this on TOP OF trying to poison us, our kids, and our PETS for fuck's sake. The U.S. may be pretty corrupt and fucked up right now, but we're Amateur Night compared to the Chinese government. Oh, and by the way: The rest of the world shoudn't let them get to the Moon -- because the bastards will try to claim it as their property, U.N. or no U.N.

  68. Obligatory by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    You show me yours and I'll show you mine...

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  69. Different posters have different priorities by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think everyone should demand the source code. Most people won't be able to use it, but without the source code they are at a severe disadvantage in getting bugs fixed.

    And "everyone" includes China. I may not trust their intentions, but their request is reasonable. I don't trust closed source applications or products either. I just have less leverage.

    I think it's reasonable to not trust China. I don't trust any government's intentions, and few corporations...and those only at a single point in time.) Individual people can be trustworthy. Organizations can be trustworthy only if they are controlled by a trustworthy individual, and then only for as long as that person remains in charge, and only to the extent that that person prevents his subordinates from acting in an untrustworthy manner. This is difficult, and requires the development of a strong corporate culture...note that this is like one of the problems of evil. It's immensely more easy to destroy than to build. Equally it's immensely more easy to have an untrustworthy organization than a trustworthy one. Just, e.g., allowing the sales department to put selling before honor will do so...and that's what salesmen WANT to do. Especially if they're on a commission, but not only then.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  70. Well, strictly speaking... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I don't consider the Chinese demand for source code to be a moral position, but rather a self-serving one. I just happen to think that EVERY customer should have the right to make that demand.

    If China wanted to make a moral demand, then they would have required that every device that was sold in China should publish it's source code openly. That would have been a moral statement. Not sure I would agree with them, but it would have been taking a moral position.

    RMS took a moral position. I happen to agree with the moral position that he took, which is that customers should have the right to the source code. If he had just re-implemented the printer driver for his own use, or reverse-engineered it, then it would not have been a moral position, but merely a self-serving one.

    N.B.:
    1) Self-serving isn't particularly bad. Not in essence. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's bad for other reasons than for being self-serving.
    2) Self-serving also isn't particularly good. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's good for other reasons than for being self-serving.

    To say that something is done for self-serving reasons is to say that it's done without taking a moral position. Things generally aren't that clear and separate, especially when organizations are involved. Some people in an organization are usually taking a moral stance, while others are acting in a self-serving manner, either for themselves or for their organization (and thus, indirectly for themselves).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  71. Re:Something like an Anti-GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure most, if not all, of the source code will not be "allowed" to be publically available.

    I would assume most of the source code would be given under something like a commercial license with source.
    Something similar to: This source code is licensed for use only within said organization, and is not to be distributed outside of said organization and only in proprietary product X of said organization.

  72. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because once the corps see their ip protection is worthless they are likely to go the open source route and build protections via other means. you cant steal whats open source. you cant sell in target markets (read: the western world) if whats open source is also patented.
    if your only protection is closed source youre DOA. this is why im an advocate of putting FPGAs into every devie and having it programmed once it reaches western shores. good luck with reverse engineering an FPGA built specifically to resist such attacks and good luck trying to sell patented goods in western countries.

  73. They'll Only Buy It Once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll buy your hardware (with that source code) just one time. Then, given the source code, they'll clone the hardware, produce their own, and effectively put you out of business.

    Don't do it. It's bad enough that they'll back-engineer both the hardware and the software and firmware (by disassembly if nothing else). You only make their job easier by giving it to them.

    So don't. At least make the thieving bastiges work for it.

  74. Re:If we play this right, this might be our chance by Microlith · · Score: 1

    So if someone in China leaks all that source... an you can be assured that it will leak... then we can finally understand the interfaces and implement the drivers.

    And every developer who looks at the sources is from that point on considered tainted, and completely ineligible to actually contribute to said projects. The only way would be to essentially sacrifice someone to write up a spec based on the stolen source code, and even that wouldn't be safe. If it were, I'm sure that WINE would be a lot farther along due to the availability of Windows source code.

    1. we have enough information to implement fast graphics card drivers

    If you want to deal with the legal disaster that would result in outside of China, sure.

    2. china will develop knock-offs for their own market, which then strangely find themselves for a fraction of the price, in your local computer store.

    Yes, what better way to encourage the development of future graphics cards by fucking over the companies that put in the time and effort to develop the chips and boards, than to buy bootleg knockoffs. That'll show them, thinking they were doing something valuable by investing in research and development!

  75. Re:If we play this right, this might be our chance by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

    Of your list of vendors, only nVidia does not contribute documentation to X.org. Intel's drivers have been open-source and vendor-supported for a while, and although it might be interesting to peek at AMD/ATI's driver source, it would not be very helpful in the long run, since most of the cards' structures are already documented. (Also AMD has committed to giving us documentation as fast as they can get it to clear legal review.)

    The main things standing in the way of speed are KMS and GEM, both of which are currently in the process of migrating into the main kernel.

    Oh, and finally, chipset prices are already falling thanks to AMD's refusal to fix prices with nVidia's offerings. Go take a look for yourself. :3

    --
    ~ C.
  76. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by meist3r · · Score: 1

    Sure I was talking about two different trains to begin with. They worked hard on gaining info on both. I was talking about this in reference to the ICE: http://www.imagetours.de/wpblog/2008/05/04/chinesen-haben-den-ice-3-langst-kopiert/ (German).

    Well they still handed over this technology despite knowing about things like the above. I can only hope they charged them a lot of money for the Shanghai Transrapid. But since it's Siemens and Thyssen I am not at all worried that they undersold.

  77. Best demand idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the Chinese have come up with in ages. If only our stupid government were half as smart.

  78. It's just a question of when. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    They will eventually dump their US bonds and wreck the dollar.

    Granted it will hurt them too.

    The real question is will the Arabs or the Chinese be the ones to trigger the crash of the dollar?

    The next question is how many weeks later the Euro will crash.

    I'm guessing around 2015 and less then one.

    They know we are scheduled to turn the printing presses up extra extra high in 2017 (SS 'trust' fund starts being 'tapped') and will crash our currency before we can do it to ourselves. The European union is also unable to control it's members use of the printing press and they mostly have unfunded retirement obligations to their baby boom.

    IIRC 2015 is also about when China will become China's #1 customer.

    I'm investing in rural land, steel, brass and copper jacketed led.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  79. Hitachi may halt China sales over IT law by romanticker · · Score: 1
  80. dude who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking kidding me? this is ridiculous. We need to realize that china is slowly earning control of our lives and economy through our own stupidity! Get a brain and say FUCK YOU CHINA

  81. They don't have much leverage by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    Practically everything for sale in China is a ripped off copy. I think most companies would respond to that threat with a "Yippee".

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  82. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The source code will be made publicly available in many cases because once its released in China, where it will be widely pirated and exploited to produce competing products, there is very little to be gained by keeping it secret elsewhere. So companies might as well just release it and let the open source community do their debugging for them.

    Of course, not all source code will be released, but this shifts the balance a lot toward release.

  83. You've got it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is concerned about firmware because of backdoors that can be placed in it to undermine security. There is a reason they are so paranoid about this, it's because they sell US products that contain the same backdoors.

  84. In psychology, they call this "projection" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 0

    A Japanese newspaper and the AP report that China plans to demand source code from hardware manufacturers, and ban the sale of products from companies that don't comply. China is calling this an "obligatory accreditation system for IT security products."

    What I would immediately suspect is that China knows quite well that is is possible to put back doors, sniffers, and data sentries in firmware and the end user will never know.

    Remember that, the next time you are concluding a frantic night's work on a breakthrough process on your Lenovo PC.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  85. Dear China by cstec · · Score: 1

    Dear China,

    Kiss my stinky behind.

    Yours truly,
    an IP creator.

    [We've sold software for years, all over the world including the most unlikely of places, seemingly everywhere EXCEPT CHINA. Take the hint. ALL thieves, no exceptions. And no that's not just our experience, that's software-industry wide.]

  86. There's no incentive for China to enforce IP by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    I do not think China can give any lesson on "with as much regard for ethics as our own companies", when all level of business, government and legal (if any), are in it to get the profits in total disregard of security, justice or basic decency without any possibility of consequences. We should be very careful with them.

    We should all forget the USA as the unfair capitalist system. China is the most savage capitalists of all. They where already grabbing everything they could on foreign markets and use it in total diseregard of any international aw or agreement.

    It's a developing economy which has very little of its own Intellectual Property, so what's the incentive to enforce IP laws?

    This is very similar to the US in its early days, is it not? I hear that a business man named Thomas Edison, although coming up with many ideas himself, also became very rich by ripping off the ideas and work of people elsewhere before they'd had an opportunity to do so themselves. (example here). Gilbert & Sullivan had similar issues getting copyrights recognised and enforced in the USA, and had to go to great lengths to stop people performing verbatim (or sometimes sub-standard) copies of their works and taking lots of money from it before they'd had a chance to cross the Atlantic and make the money from the work themselves.

    Now that the USA is the source of large amounts of intellectual property that gets sent around the world, rather than the user of other people's ideas, there's a much higher incentive for it to insist on other countries' cooperation in enforcing it's citizens' IP ownership.

    So, the USA and other western countries could either wait (or even try to encourage the development of IP within China), or it could stop doing business with China until China changes. China's another country, IP laws are artificial constructs anyway, and there really needs to be an incentive for Chinese people to take IP seriously. Give China its own IP as well as ability and reasons to create more, and it might actually have a reason to respect other people's.

    1. Re:There's no incentive for China to enforce IP by gwait · · Score: 1

      the USA and other western countries could either wait (or even try to encourage the development of IP within China), or it could stop doing business with China until China changes.

      A little too late for that. The US is in some trillions of dollars in Debt to... China.

      China artificially hold their Yuan at a fixed valuation to the US dollar by buying/selling Gold/US Dollars/TBills on a daily basis.

      If they stopped doing that (As George W Bush has demanded now and then for some odd reason) the US dollar would plummet down lower than the Peso.

      At some point the US will realize that China won the economic war somewhere around about 1999..

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
  87. And the US is different how? by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    This seems to be significantly less nasty than the US using its global monitoring network to intercept commercially valuable information and supply it to its own companies for gain..

    You guys are just pissed that China is big enough to throw some weight around also - if you dont like it, dont sell your stuff there. Its their dirt, and it would have to argue this voilates any human rights, so whats the problem?

    'During the Clinton administration, NSA agents monitored Japanese communications during auto talks and French communications during talks on world trade.'

    'An office was created within the Department of Commerce, the Office of Intelligence Liaison, to forward intercepted materials to major US corporations.'

    http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/mhs/mhscommerce.htm

    http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clinteons.htm

  88. Why is this a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same thing has been happening in the United States for a while now. When you enter the country the TSA has the legal right to inspect all digital data that you are attempting to bring into the country.

    One could argue that handing over data in some official capacity is better than handing it over to some random inspector at the airport.

  89. Moron, or just being stupid? by lpq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    geekmux said: "I sure as hell don't see people boycotting Coca Cola products because they haven't revealed their secret formula to EVERYONE"..

    I haven't seen one instance of someone cracking Coke's secret formula and using it to break into a system -- nor have I once seen a buffer overflow or backdoor or just stupid program error in Coke's formula cause billion dollar threats to the internet.

    It's real different -- code that goes into computers doesn't go through testing like food or drug products -- as corrupt as drug testing is, it's orders of magnitude more testing than every line of code in a product goes through before being released in a closed source product.

    If food and drugs were sold like code, they'd cause fatal lingering diseases that required you to buy a lifetime supply of "patch" drugs from the manufacturer...

    1. Re:Moron, or just being stupid? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...If food and drugs were sold like code, they'd cause fatal lingering diseases that required you to buy a lifetime supply of "patch" drugs from the manufacturer...

      Holy crap, your statement pretty much describes Microsoft Update. Had me rolling there for a minute.

      The drugs aren't sold to us, but "diseases" such as ADD/ADHD are. Those who "discovered" ADD/ADHD managed to find a multi-trillion dollar "cure" in the form of "patch" drugs. Much like Coca Cola, perhaps the FDA/AMA is not a good analogy here either.

      That being said, I do agree with some level of auditing, but again, cannot look past who is asking for it, especially in this case.

    2. Re:Moron, or just being stupid? by lpq · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, your statement pretty much describes Microsoft Update. Had me rolling there for a minute.

      Of course it does, except MS Update doesn't require [yet] yearly infusions of cash -- they *do* require you to upgrade to their new OS, though, if you want to continue to buy new software. How much software around today would even begin to run on Win98? All ready games and desktop candy are being released that exclusively require features in Vista, that won't be backported. Eventually if you want any new software, you'll find you have to upgrade -- and if you want to keep up on security updates, you will have to upgrade because older software is no longer maintained -- AND that's the point. Many people are running software that works fine for their application and need. But if they want a fix in their product's DNS server, they have to upgrade to a supported product. If the source of "no longer supported products" was released, customers could support themselves until they wanted to move on their own schedule to something new. (By supporting self, I also include hiring someone to do the support).

      I've had too many software products that I wanted to keep using - they worked and didn't have some of the problems of older products (like my old phone that got better reception everywhere, but I was forced to replace when the digital reception got flakey. Couldn't get an equivalent product phone -- AND my new phone had to include "Echelon" tech that allows 3rd party activation of my phone and location tracking. So that's another way closed source is used to weasel in new spy and monitor provisions into existing software.

      The drugs aren't sold to us, but "diseases" such as ADD/ADHD are. Those who "discovered" ADD/ADHD managed to find a multi-trillion dollar "cure" in the form of "patch" drugs. Much like Coca Cola, perhaps the FDA/AMA is not a good analogy here either.

      You can choose to believe in the diseases or not -- and you can choose to believe that the newly "manufactured" diseases apply to you or not. If you think the diseases are a sham, no one is forcing you to take the new meds. Whereas with software, you can't look inside the software and make any decision about how safe it is -- you are told all versions are broken and must be replaced. What can you do? You can't get a second opinion -- because no one can look inside the source to verify if your software has the problem or if the new patch *only* fixes the supposed problem and *only* the supposed problem. With software you are in the dark -- with your health, you can judge whether you feel just fine or you can get a 2nd opinion before you are forced to take a "cure" for your problem.

      It's not usually like the borderline case with Gardasil (the HPV vaccine), that isn't for a current condition but is to prevent against something that doesn't exist in you yet -- and it's not usually forced on you (as Gardasil is being forced on all new immigrant women), in spite of CDC recommendations against the requirement).

      When patches and shots are forced upon you because you cannot examine your own source code or determine your own risk, it's a very different situation from knowing the secret formula of Coke (which is not a product that's likely going to be causing security breaches in your systems or your body). Please get a clue.

  90. Re:If we play this right, this might be our chance by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    > and although it might be interesting to peek at AMD/ATI's driver source, it would not be very helpful in the long run, since most of the cards' structures are already documented

    Yeah. As far as I know it only misses the most irrelevant part: The 3D- and video acceleration interfaces. Very useful... </sarcasm>

    I'll look up KMS and GEM. Thanks for the tip.

    About the prices: I hope, this also happens to the graphics card market.
    By the way: Shouldn't nVidia be punished for even offering price fixing?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  91. Re:If we play this right, this might be our chance by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    If you want to deal with the legal disaster that would result in outside of China, sure.

    What legal disaster? If you create drivers for a card, and they work, this means shit. First nVidia would have to prove that you posess(ed) that source code. Good luck with that! Then they would have to go to the one who *broke the license*! Or do you still live in **AA wonderland, where downloading is illegal for no reason? You should know that 1) The uploader gave you the right to use it how you please, by letting you download it without license, and 2) the uploader broke a *license*! This is still far away from breaking a law!
    Oh, and the one who broke the license would be *China*! So good luck with THAT!
    And your country being controlled by companies and making up laws does not change a thing for the rest of the world.
    Get real!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  92. Re:If we play this right, this might be our chance by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

    Without going into NDA territory, there are acceleration docs for the r3xx-r5xx at http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/ , and r6xx documentation is currently pending legal review. Xvideo and EXA are done in Radeons in the 3D engine.

    nVidia and ATI are currently being investigated by SEC and DoJ for price fixing and antitrust violation, yes.

    --
    ~ C.
  93. They don't do that with us.. by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen any Chinese companies disclosing their source code so that we in the US can feel good about their products. I think that they think they can do this because we want to sell into their vast population, but I predict that after we disclose, similar chinese products will appear, and those expected sales will not. A country with as little regard for copyright issues and pirate DVD and CD markets can hardly be depended on to do the right thing with our source code, and while we are at it, I would like to review the source code of the high end routers we buy from China that are being used to operate our network infrastructure.

  94. Go China! Go! by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 1

    They will be able to know if there are backdoors in the hardware. The will be able to known if there are backdoors in the software. They will be able to replicate and improve the hardware they have the design for. We may end-up will *all* hardware specifications (thinking of nvidia) for Linux. If those companies want to produce chips using the cheap money from China... they will have to pay the real price in another way... actually I think that would be fair.

  95. In China's defence....... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    Copyright considerations and concerns have been dealt with in other threads so I won't do anything more on that than accept that source code given to the Chinese government should be considered as compromised. In China's defence, they know very well that the US and other governments require their companies to allow their intelligence services access to their products....whether they admit it publicly or not. The illegal, warrantless spying that the US government has been doing via US network providers must be seen by China and anyone else as only the tip of the iceberg. It has effectively compromised all these companies and rendered their products unsalable to many foreign governments. The German government didn't move to Linux and away from Windows because they don't like Bill Gates. They wanted secure systems and they can't get that using closed-source software from a country with a government that has no respect for the law...be that country the US or China. Not much difference between them in this area.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  96. Cisco?? by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    Somehow I don't see Cisco doing this; their DoD and USG presence would preclude them to allowing that kind of backdoor penetration.

  97. iPhone is the best phone ever! by misterooga · · Score: 1

    Oops, wrong thread.

  98. Really dumb by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    You mean to tell me that they can install hidden malware into out hardware devices, but when we sell them items(we , i mean poepl that are not chinese) we have to show them proof that there are no hidden backdoors, smart....very smart grasshoper....now take stone from my hand!

  99. Re:Cut them off. Draw the line. by jellybear · · Score: 1

    Precisely. My argument is simply game theory. Some players will find it in their favour to give their source code to the Chinese. Once they have done that, it is much more likely to be advantageous to them to go fully open source. Since they have already sacrificed a significant portion of the benefits of playing the closed-source strategy, they are more likely to play the open-source strategy. In other words, the opportunity of foregoing closed-source is lower once the Chinese already have your source.

  100. Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism 2.0