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.
Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders?
It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.