Slashdot Mirror
Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos
theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."
Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview. When companies do, or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The US recently "got away" with launching two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand innocent people. Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents. Superpowers play by their own rules, unfortunately, and accountability can only take place internally.
This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...
This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. Will we ever see the end of these practices? I don't believe in my lifetime, if ever.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
People have their commercial interests
Well, yes, I guess that's what was missing in the Cold War. If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart, perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba, in order not to make people nervous. Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism. Chinese are seemingly smarter, and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West's consumers. I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?
I suggest reversing the polarity. It's always worked before.
Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused? Just because the consequences aren't immediate doesn't mean they aren't coming. So too with the cyber attacks - I doubt the likes of Google will sit idlely by when people take pot-shots at them.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
The extent of this attack was unclear, but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk. Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated (1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised.) Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.
If this was a government sponsored attack, figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree.
The U.S. got away with two wars that failed to accomplish their stated goals because it accomplished hidden economic goals (opened up the flow of oil). China will get away with what they are doing because of hidden economic goals. China's economy is growing tremendously and will continue to do so: the U.S. and its corporations want a piece of that. Humans rights? Yeah, those are important until corporate profits are on the line. Then they're not.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it. China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.
China is already manufacturer to the world, and within a few decades they will lead *everything* - scientific research, they'll be the biggest economy, the biggest market, and the most powerful military.
It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.
The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter. It's nice to have warm fuzzy morals, but when those morals come up against reality, that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. It's not the "right" side that wins, it's the most powerful side. China knows this - they're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.
The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.
USA - 4
Germany - 1
India - 1
UK - 1
China - 0
http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm
While it is certainly true that might makes right, as you also said, in the not too distant future they'll also have the most powerful military.
Fact of the mater is, there are quite a few of their rules that I don't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now, the more dismal the future may well become.
Yes they have. The Bush administration is safe from reprisals, and will never be taken to account in any form.
Oh, you meant are Americans in general safe? "Americans in general" don't matter.
Not to be the devil's advocate here, but wasn't it also extremely profitable to be helping out Hitler once upon a time? Are commercial interests really a good justification for what's going on?
This is not an area for business to make judgements on. Business will do what is legal, and no more. This is an area for governments to step in. Why not make it illegal for corps to engage in business practices that would be considered unlawful outside the jurisdiction? That would fix a lot of these ethical problems. The way it is now, a moral corp cannot afford to be outdone in China by an amoral one.
Corps should not be left alone in making judgements on ethics. The most recent lesson on that isn't Nazi Germany, btw. It happened as recently as this decade, when Mr. Greenspan trusted banks to make the right decisions.
As far as I can see, there is no grey area here.
Didn't you get the memo? The new definition of a world leader is "a criminal with corporate backing". They struck the "politician" between criminal and with, because they ain't really important anymore, you can move and replace them as you see fit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why did we go to war?
I mean, Afghanistan makes a wea bit of sense, national outrage and whatnot - along with the old standby of keeping the war industry healthy, but Iraq. Why the devil are we in Iraq if not for oil?
Giving them freedom is just propaganda, there are plenty of other "oppressed" nations in the world. Plenty of other nations engaged in civil wars, or on the verge of them.
"Weapons of mass destruction" didn't really pan out.
Even keeping the war industry healthy can't possibly be enough to justify all the grief politicians are going through as a result of all the wasted money from the rest of the country.
The only other reasons I can see is that we're boxing in Iran in some kind of cold-war era containment doctrine action, a message to the rest of the world that American can just go in and invade whoever we want, and natural resources, the most prominent of which is oil.
We're not "counting".
And if you're "counting" when do you start? Do you go back to the "two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand" or do you go back to Tiananmen Square or do you go back to Viet Nam or do you go back to the Cultural Revolution where tens of millions were murdered in the name of domestic policy?
Bad is bad. Starting phony wars, imprisoning, torturing and killing dissidents...it's all evil. It's not a competition for who's the most fucked up. And believe me, if we're talking historically, it's not a competition that China wants to have. The best thing that could happen is when countries start calling each other on their shitty behavior. Air out the hypocrisy on both sides. Let's publish the names, the numbers of the dead and imprisoned. Let's have this discussion. And what the hell, since as far as I can tell Google as a corporation hasn't killed anyone yet, and has by most accounts behaved reasonably well as far as transnational corporations go, let them participate in the discussion too.
And the idea that a corporation, big or not so big, decides to call a powerful customer on their shitty behavior...I'm OK with that too. The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means. The fact that they're willing to do something that puts pressure on a repressive regime - no matter the motivation - is a good thing too.
I'm just tired of the "you guys did X so that means we can do Y, and how dare you criticize me for X when you've done Z" and it's all a downward cycle.
Pressure against repressive regimes, no matter from which precinct it comes from, is a good thing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not sure "nationalism" is the word you want to use there.
I'm trying to come up with a single case where "nationalism" turned out to be a good thing.
I'm still thinking, but maybe somebody can offer one.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
Neither of those entities have ever -had- real power. The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
IT powerhouses are publicly traded: it will never happen. Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked. Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula. Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys. Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.
American investment and corporate ownership is a maze. Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that, if the shareholders didn't want to do business with China, they would be able to influence the company in that direction. However, in reality, the 'shareholders' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds, which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds. If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits, they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.
The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is *incredible*, but Google's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that's self-owned or owned by its employees. The rest - Cisco, Microsoft, Apple - are all in for the long run.
Countries illegally invaded: Georgia
Mass murderers propped up: Sudan, Iran, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and probably others I'm not thinking of right now. China and Russia seem to think that if you are only murdering your own people, it doesn't really count.
How many countries has Russia bombed since WW2? Think about it. You might want to change your timeframe to "since 1990".
Eh, I was in the Air Force for four years, and got deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comm guy, got to spend 12 hours a day in a bunker, waiting for stuff to break, reading, and doing homework for online classes. Still gave me a good reason to read up on all this and get a little personal experience in the area. The Iran containment thing is a favorite theory among the various members of the military that I talked to, and has a little more weight behind it than you give it credit for.
The reasoning behind it is that Iraq was (supposedly, I'm not an authority on this) a failing state before we even moved in, and if it had fallen apart on its own the most likely successor would either be an official Iranian invasion, or an Iranian puppet government, neither of which would have been a good thing for American foreign interests.
Furthermore, while the war and rebuilding nonsense is sucking us dry, and our military is pretty terrible at fighting a Guerrilla war (ALL formal militaries are pretty terrible at fighting against insurgencies like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan) - the assets we have in place in the Middle East could pretty well level any country in the area within a few days (destroying formal military forces is something we excel at).
Beyond that, some group of people in the upper echelons of political power seem to believe an allied Middle East (creating something like the EU) would be a very bad thing, and American Foreign policy is reflecting that.
War for oil doesn't make a lot of sense. For the amount spent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (roughly 1 trillion) around 1/7 of the oil in Iraq (around 112 billion barrels) could be purchased at current prices ($77 per barrel). Sure prices are going to continue to rise, but the US does not have any special rights to Iraq oil now and so still has to buy it on the global market. Furthermore the oil could have been brought to market without a war for free.
If oil was the primary reason for the war then the embargoes would have been lifted and the oil purchased.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
heya,
I'm not American, I'm actually Australian, but I seriously do not understand these nutjobs and their conspiracy theories about Big Oil, and what not.
Saddam Hussein was a appalling leader, I don't think anybody would argue against that. Him, his sons, and their cronies raped, pillaged and mass-murdered *their own people*, and used chemical weapons against their own frigging people. I mean, seriously, what sort of person can do that, and go to sleep at night? You think it's ok to rape random women off the street, then kill them afterwards, and keep doing this? And look, the whole WMD thing may have been some massive con-job by Hussein perpetrated on Bush and other idiots in the West too willing to believe him, but look, he tried to play poker with them, and lost. That's how it is. He pretended to have them, pretended to give concessions, and played games back and forth with weapons inspectors.
His own people were all too willing to hang him for his crimes. That's got to tell you something. As horrific as he was, I still don't believe in the death penalty, but that's got to tell you something.
So sure, people argue, oh, there's heaps of oppressive regimes, it's not our job to be the world's police, blah blah, let them sort out their own problems. Oh, and we wasted billions on this war, that we could have spend on our own people. Then you turn around and say it was all about profit, and Big Oil. Please, considering the billions ploughed in to eradicate this tyrant, and rebuild the country, it would have been cheaper to just buy the damn stuff. You can't have it both ways - either it was an idealistic war fought that was none of our business, or it was some cynical profit-driven war of convenience.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Bush and his gang, whilst not the brightest bulbs in the bunch, actually didn't like Hussein, and just really wanted to topple the stupid son of a b*tch. You can argue that it was a stupid thing to do, and a waste of resources, but I don't think anybody would argue that the world's not better off without him. I bet if Bush thought he could take down Kim Il Jong, without risking nuclear recriminations, he wouldn't have thought twice. Sure, it's a bit of a black-and-white view of the world, and some would say a bit primitive, but I challenge anybody to actually tell me they think that these two clowns are good men, who really look out for their people.
Cheers, Victor
That's why the USA attacked Iraq: the USA felt it couldn't afford to allow Iraq to sell Iraqi oil for Euros instead of greenbacks.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I feel so proud.
The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.
The UN and World Court do exist when they agree with the United States. Isn't that peculiar.
There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic
So, the trade agreements around the world are a figment of my imagination? Trade embargoes don't exist, multi-party talks to persuade foreign governments exist entirely in my imagination. It is fascinating how insane I am.
and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China.
And you'd base this on what fortune telling ability? I'm glad simple assertions are gaining traction here on slashdot. By this time next year we can all be Brothers in Christ.
Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.
What do you think the result will be in the end if the caveman ethic of violent response continues to be the most popular option among powerful nations? It seems like adhering to legal treaties at every opportunity would be a better idea than blowing people up, or testing the reliability of Soviet era nuclear defense systems.
But to hell with international law, right? No constitutional republic really believes in the rule of law. Finally we can admit it's all a farce, and move on with whatever benefits the empire. I'm so glad you've seen the light, sir. Your fealty has been noted.
The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld
Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.
And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that? What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds? US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.
This is the crucial mistake the US has made: it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing. Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich, but the country is in real trouble for it now.
The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means.
Actually, no. The word literally means "embodiment", which is the essence of its legal definition. A corporation could exist for the explicit purpose of losing money, giving it to charity, spreading the gospel, etc. Whatever the shareholders prescribe.
Except for the part where Bush originally ran on a platform of non-intervention, diplomatic involvement, and "we are not the world's police force".
That wasn't when they chose to go to war. Before the Iraq war, around 80% of Americans favored invasion. The pressure from the public was great enough that most congressmen felt obligated to vote for it. Politicians don't only look backwards at what they said in the previous election, they are also looking forward to the next election, so they are responsive to things voters feel strongly about.
At the time I was really upset at Bush because I thought he was pushing America in a direction we didn't want to go. My eyes were opened to the truth when a commentator said, "Protesters are saying, 'no blood for oil', but a lot of Americans would answer that, 'why not?" American citizens bear responsibility for the war. Bush led the way, but America had to follow.
Qxe4
Saddam Hussein was a appalling leader, I don't think anybody would argue against that.
It would be hard to argue that he wasn't a rather bad person, however considering the circumstances of the country he did at least manage to keep the peace a lot more than after his removal... it was an all out blood bath after he was taken out.
His own people were all too willing to hang him for his crimes.
And you think there aren't people who'd like to see bush hanged within the US? At suddams trial they removed the first judge because they didn't like what he was saying, replacing him with a one that was more likely to give them the result they wanted.. the trial was a farce.
but I don't think anybody would argue that the world's not better off without him.
If there were less violent deaths after he was taken out I'd agree with you, but more people died in the year after his removal than had the whole decade before at his hands. That isn't to say he shouldn't have been removed from power.. but it shouldn't have necessarily been done the way it was.
Sure, it's a bit of a black-and-white view of the world, and some would say a bit primitive, but I challenge anybody to actually tell me they think that these two clowns are good men, who really look out for their people.
Every leader looks out for their people to at least a certain extent, there are only so many people you can piss off before even the military rebel and you get your ass handed to you. If you had two sects of the same religion at war within your country how well do you think you could stop them from killing each other while retaining freedom of the people? It's not as easy as it sounds.
Things aren't as simple as you think. Many factors contribute to what comes to pass.