Slashdot Mirror


Technology Colonialism

jrepin sends an editorial from Anjuan Simmons on how tech companies are behaving more and more in a manner that evokes colonialism. Quoting: Technology companies are increasingly being treated like sovereign nations. A nation with sovereignty has a right to conduct its internal affairs without interference from other nations. ... When technology companies are feted by foreign ministers and also refuse an invitation from the leader of their own country of origin, they exhibit the characteristics of a group that wants to be treated as a peer to heads of state. Technology companies understand the power they wield in the global economy. ... If Silicon Valley is allowed to become the central repository of information about people around the world, then there is a danger of setting up a form of imperialism based on personal data. Just as the royal powers of old reached far into the lives of distant colonized people, technology companies gain immense control with every terabyte of personal data they store and analyze.

81 comments

  1. Translation: by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I want everyone to hate what I hate as much as I hate it, so here's some extremely shaky logic that attempts to conflate what I hate to something that most people already hate, because what I hate most of all is coming up with real, cogent arguments. Hate!"

    1. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, sprinkling little tidbits of bullshit as a replacement for actual knowledge, such as some fuckin millennial exploring the dynamics of colonialism in an otherwise feudal landscape of Obama style communism. Typical serf like stupidity. Pathetic.

    2. Re:Translation: by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh wow, this article reads like a pravda piece might have during the height of the cold war. Lets do a sanity check. We have two 'trigger' words in this summary: 'colonialism' and 'imperialism', in newspeak contexts. Lets click on the link and see... Ah, the slogan is "Technology, culture and diversity media." We have another newspeak term: 'diversity', as any individual daring to identify as an individual or, worse, act in his own interest, is obviously a racist, sexist 'imperialist' pig dead set on world domination. Care to guess the politics of the submitter and/or the source?

      However, despite being invited, Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, perhaps feeling their own imperial bona fides, decided to skip the president’s speech.

      Like, how DARE they skip out on Dear Leader??! They need to check their privilege!

      I'm all for protecting personal identity, rights, and liberty from predatory people and organizations (private AND public!), but this source is just a tad biased, folks. Too biased for its analysis to be much use. This article spends too much time bitching about the corp-rats, and no time dealing with the big elephants in the room, the ones issuing mandatory surveillance law and gag orders to silence criticism and dissent from those who would rather opt out. If the political culture in western countries still respected individual rights over groupthink knee jerking, we wouldn't have half the privacy concerns we do.

    3. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of shaky logic ... um ...

    4. Re:Translation: by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      We have another newspeak term: 'diversity', as any individual daring to identify as an individual or, worse, act in his own interest, is obviously a racist, sexist 'imperialist' pig dead set on world domination.

      Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought 'diversity' strongly implied and endorsed individuality - especially given that one antonym of 'diversity' is 'conformity'.

      If the political culture in western countries still respected individual rights over groupthink knee jerking, we wouldn't have half the privacy concerns we do.

      Does the article really strike you as "groupthink knee jerking"? If so, then wouldn't you at least apply the same criticism to the corporate world, so much of which is the epitome of groupthink?

      I agree that we need to restore a political culture that respects individual rights. But I don't think that the people who champion diversity, (and whom you liken to Communists), are enemies of individual rights. In fact, I believe they're quite the opposite. Yes, people who push for political correctness sometimes go too far - but who doesn't? And honestly, I don't think the terms 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' are too strong for the corporate dominance trends I'm seeing every day.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just add "Zionism" and you got the gist of the average prattle on Occupy and other FB groups.

      Don't worry... Pravda is still there and spewing out their usual rubbish about how the avatars of peace are making Syria their forward home to ensure tranquility.

      Problem is that in the past, people knew it was propaganda. These days, that stuff gets gulped down as "fact" and passed around FB as memes.

    6. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought 'diversity' strongly implied and endorsed individuality - especially given that one antonym of 'diversity' is 'conformity'.

      Individuality is only good so long as it conforms to the group.

    7. Re:Translation: by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought 'diversity' strongly implied and endorsed individuality - especially given that one antonym of 'diversity' is 'conformity'.

      Sure, except when it doesn't. Diversity is great until it's suggested that class-based affirmative action is hypocritical. In the case of this article, if you're techno-literate and run a successful business in the field, you're an oppressor, especially if you skip out on Dear Leader's speeches (among other accusations).

      Does the article really strike you as "groupthink knee jerking"? If so, then wouldn't you at least apply the same criticism to the corporate world, so much of which is the epitome of groupthink?

      Of course, and, yes, I would. Radical leftists like the author of this article are fine examples of dogmatic left wing knee jerkers. I called this guy a communist because he writes like one. He uses the terminology and appeals that communists (and a lot of today's left) would. ..and yes, there's plenty of dogmatic garbage, knee jerking, and groupthink, in the corporate world, too. The same social dynamic ills affect both public and private organizations. The bigger they are, the worse they get. They both become dangerous when they garner too much sway over society.

      There's nothing wrong with diversity in its natural state, which is based on individual rights and liberty for all, by default. The politically charged left wing version is a perversion of the original meaning. Their version picks winners and losers based on the traits that were supposedly used to oppress and actively reenforces castes from them. The winners get social/legal/financial privilege by default, and the losers have to pay for it. All this does is create new underclasses that war with each other.

    8. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity means uniformity in newspeak. Several countries with different populations and culture? Not diverse. Several countries with the same population and culture? Diverse.
      Any country who dares to protect its heritage is accused of being evil racist biggots and not diverse enough... unless it's a Muslim or Jewish country.

    9. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See reddit. Now slashdot too I fear

    10. Re:Translation: by Burz · · Score: 1

      They use a vocabulary that's quite larger than yours, without the heaping doses of fallacy and hysteria -- and you are calling that Newspeak? I've got some news for you: The Bush II era is over.

      But, thanks for "translating" and trying to weed out all the unnecessary words from /. and for being an example of the kind of anti-intellectual you pretend to rail against.

    11. Re:Translation: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And honestly, I don't think the terms 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' are too strong for the corporate dominance trends I'm seeing every day.

      If anything, the focus of the article is too narrow. Data isn't even the half of it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Why invent a new word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's called fascism, folks.

    1. Re:Why invent a new word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's called fascism, folks.

      No, it's not. It's also not called Colonialism.

      When technology companies are feted by foreign ministers and also refuse an invitation from the leader of their own country of origin, they exhibit the characteristics of a group that wants to be treated as a peer to heads of state

      So? Every Citizen in a Free Society ought to be treated as a Peer to Heads of State.

      Corporations and Individuals should not have to "answer" to the Head of State, only to the Law. Quite the opposite in fact- it is the Heads of State who should be held accountable to the Citizens, and the Laws should hold only as much power as the Population grants them.

    2. Re:Why invent a new word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, it's not."

      Weird, it's the very definition of it: "Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

      But hey, whatever.

      "Corporations and Individuals should not have to "answer" to the Head of State, only to the Law. Quite the opposite in fact- it is the Heads of State who should be held accountable to the Citizens, and the Laws should hold only as much power as the Population grants them."

      Careful with that nitrous, damage may be permanent. What's with the Random capitalization? You German? So your rebuttal is some sort of idealistic world that doesn't exist? Let me guess: you also think we'll colonize Mars?

    3. Re:Why invent a new word? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Corporations and Individuals should not have to "answer" to the Head of State, only to the Law. Quite the opposite in fact- it is the Heads of State who should be held accountable to the Citizens, and the Laws should hold only as much power as the Population grants them.

      I would agree with you if you didn't equate corporations with citizens. Perhaps corporations shouldn't have to answer to heads of state, but they bloody well ought to answer to government. The hierarchy should have citizens at the top, followed by the government in the middle, with corporations on the bottom. We've allowed that order to be reversed, and we're paying the price.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:Why invent a new word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you if you didn't equate corporations with citizens. Perhaps corporations shouldn't have to answer to heads of state, but they bloody well ought to answer to government. The hierarchy should have citizens at the top, followed by the government in the middle, with corporations on the bottom. We've allowed that order to be reversed, and we're paying the price.

      Corporations are made up of citizens. I guess we're proposing that citizens are on top during the hours of the day they're not working, but are subject to every vagary and whim a government agent gets to think up during the hours they're at work?

      Be careful when you start affording "collectives" some sort of undesirable "third-rate citizen" status. Humans are social beings, and the ability to band together to pursue common economic interests is absolutely a fundamental human right. How you're going to protect that right while saying that the government can do anything at any time that it wishes to a company, is beyond me.

      What you SHOULD be arguing is that we are a country and a society of *laws*: Laws occupy the top rung of the ladder, because *everybody* is subject to them, from the head of state, on down to the lowliest unemployed jerk.

      Citizens, and their individual freedoms, are next in the hierarchy - subject to laws, but government and corporations exist to serve their interests.

      Then corporations and other collective endeavors.

      Then at the bottom, the government: which exists to *enforce* the laws, and *serve* the people and collectives that make up the governed society.

      Also, corporations lack a power that government is explicitly granted: that of force.

    5. Re:Why invent a new word? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I agree with pretty much everything you say.

      only to the Law

      The problem here is that they should answer to the Law, but increasingly are picking and choosing which laws they feel like answering to. If the best reason you can give for Uber to be allowed to ignore the law is "because I don't like that particular law", well... there there are a lot of laws that aren't liked by a lot of different people, and you're bound to find someone using the same justification to ignore a law that you like. I've met people who openly believe that fraud shouldn't be a crime: if you trick a person into giving you money, it should be rightfully yours. I've seen one person (maybe a troll, maybe serious) say that if you don't realize that you've been robbed, you haven't been robbed. I wouldn't invite that person to my house without comprehensively cataloging every last item of value, in the event that they try to steal something in the hopes that I wouldn't notice. I wouldn't be surprised if that person's grandmothers have "misplaced" a lot of jewelry over the years.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Why invent a new word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a free society the government is afraid of the citizenry. In a tyranny the citizenry is afraid of the government. I know which one I want to live in.

  3. how does it apply to MS and Google? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    the same ones who have been sued and being sued by government around the world? how about when GE tried to buy Allied in 2000 and the Europeans said no and killed the deal? what about when reagan told japanese car makers to make their cars in the USA and they complied? The president is not a king and no one has to run and see him. some of you kids need to realize we live in a nation of laws and private companies can tell the government to fcuk off if they wanted to. happens all the time. the reason why we have paid warranties on everything now is that around 2000 UPS won a big case against the IRS concerning writing off the risk of selling insurance even when you minimize your risk to almost nothing.

  4. Acting like != being by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Look, my 6 year old niece acts like a queen, that doesn't make her one.

    Their are significant differences between corporations and countries.

    Corporations care about money above all else - countries care about many things.

    Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people, all countries do this, all the time, publicly, etc.

    Corporations don't care about location, countries build it into their system

    Some corporations agree to subordination, while all countries insist on superiority/equality (Countries always claim that they are in charge, not the corporations - even if in reality is the other way around).

    I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country. It simply does not exist.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Acting like != being by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

      Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people

      In Missouri, they do now!

      --

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

    2. Re:Acting like != being by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      Look, my 6 year old niece acts like a queen, that doesn't make her one.

      No duh. At that age, she has to first pay her dues and settle for being princess for a while. Maybe even just a lady or duchess.

    3. Re:Acting like != being by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative

      To make my previous post more clear: the letter I linked to was the governor explaining why he vetoed the bill that would give private security officers the same powers as commissioned police. As of two days ago, his veto was overridden and that bill is now law.

      --

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

    4. Re:Acting like != being by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Corporations care about money above all else - countries care about many things.

      But most of those things boil down to money, either in cash or resources. Almost every war, even wars purportedly of religion, begin because someone has something someone else wants.

      I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country. It simply does not exist.

      The RIAA and the MPAA use to send out "swat" teams with their jackets emblazoned with their cartel acronym (in the style of the FBI or ATF) to shakedown street bootleggers. Orin Hatch suggested in a senate hearing on piracy that the RIAA should be allowed to remotely destroy computers hosting songs. The idea is not lunacy.

    5. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people, all countries do this, all the time, publicly, etc.

      Nice hedge there with "publicly". Actually, multinationals do all those things publicly in Third World countries.

      In the U.S., the prison-industrial complex does indeed publicly imprison people, and lobbies for stricter sentencing laws - just what a profit-oriented organization should do, right? Read "Slavery by Another Name" to see how major railway, steel and resource extraction companies used what was essentially slave labor in the South in the early 1900's.

    6. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your six year old niece control large amounts of wealth and have the power to write laws? If so, great analogy.

    7. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Their are significant differences between corporations and countries."

      There are also significant differences between their, they're, and there.

    8. Re:Acting like != being by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Then you should take you head out of your ass and see what's happening. Examples Verizon, Comcast et.al. opposing municipal wifi and fiber rollouts particularly in areas where they don't have a foot print. So fuck off.

    9. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, it IS good to remember that corporations would grab (and, indeed, were the climate to slowly edge that way first, certainly endeavor to manufacture false crises to ensure) something like Extraterriotoriality at any opportunity.

    10. Re:Acting like != being by thrig · · Score: 2

      The history of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency may also be a relevant line of research wrt corporate power.

    11. Re:Acting like != being by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country.

      Dutch East India Company
      "It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[5] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.[6]"

      "By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.[28]"

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    12. Re:Acting like != being by Livius · · Score: 1

      Individual corporations, perhaps not. But together corporations already own entire governments.

    13. Re:Acting like != being by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      She could be on Naboo.

    14. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people, all countries do this, all the time, publicly, etc.

      Yes, they do. Walmart doesn't have stormtroopers, but Academi does. Any oil corp that operates in the Middle East hires troops, and you can bet sometimes the troops have to shoot someone. And not all countries have to deal with criminals, as there's the Vatican (which, granted, is a special case).

      I have seen no corporation coming anywhere close to claiming to have the powers of a country. It simply does not exist.

      You've forgotten the Honourable East India Company. Even if they didn't claim to have the "powers of a country", they controlled a good part of India with their many troops.

    15. Re:Acting like != being by Burz · · Score: 1

      The Bundy Ranch now controls a piece of Nevada about the size of Connecticut, after having trained their guns on federal agents and turned them away.

    16. Re:Acting like != being by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Corporations routinely pay massive bribes in tax havens to politicians from all over the world, the main reason why politicians do not target those tax havens. They have grossly excessive power via those bribes.

      Suck it up you privacy invasive freaks, the laws will crack down eventually and the digital anal probing will be over.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Acting like != being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. They can detain someone (pretty much the same as a citizen's arrest) and they can collect evidence. But they cannot imprison or kill. Yes, I know the word "detaining" can be taken to mean "imprison", but that's not what we're talking about here.

  5. Facebook delenda est by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This illustrates why the Free Software movement is so incredibly important. But it isn't just Free "Software" that we need; it's Free Protocols, standards and systems. It is intolerable to allow the Internet to be carved into centralized, single-company-controlled silos like Facebook, Twitter, and Google's various services because they abuse that control for their own ends, and will only expand the degree of that abuse in the future. It is inevitable that they will eventually use their privileged position to unduly control world events, if they aren't doing so already.

    It is not enough to simply avoid using those things; they are already actively working to rape us of our privacy (through third parties) whether we participate or not. We have a moral imperative to both actively resist having anyone use them and to build decentralized, privacy-respecting replacements.

    Of course, that's easy to say. With all the money and power vested in asserting totalitarian control over the world's information against us, how do we win?

    --

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

    1. Re:Facebook delenda est by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "build decentralized, privacy-respecting replacements" Nothing stopping you or anyone else from doing this now. And for the vast majority of people Facebook, Twitter, and Google has always been "free software" which is what made them popular in the first place. In today's world it is up to each person to guard their own privacy. Plenty of free tools for e-mail and messaging encryption and anonymous web browsing. Stop using any social media services. If you are really paranoid only use public Internet cafes when going online. Stop using the Internet altogether. Take it to any extreme you want but calling for building software that somehow guards your privacy without any effort on your part is silly.

    2. Re:Facebook delenda est by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      In today's world it is up to each person to guard their own privacy.

      Too bad doing so is literally impossible.

      Plenty of free tools for e-mail and messaging encryption and anonymous web browsing. Stop using any social media services. If you are really paranoid only use public Internet cafes when going online. Stop using the Internet altogether.

      Awesome. Now tell me how to stop third parties (e.g. friends, family, utility companies, credit reporting agencies, anybody operating surveillance cameras, the government) from sharing so much information about me that anything I might have posted on Facebook could have been extrapolated anyway. That's the problem!

      More importantly, tell me how I can accomplish all that while still being able to exercise my 1st Amendment rights of free speech and free association (as opposed to dropping out of society to subsist in a cabin in the woods somewhere).

      I mean, did you pay attention to my previous post at all? Did you read the article I cited, which illustrated how (for example) if social media had existed in the 1700s the British could have used it to quash the American Revolution before it began by identifying and taking out key individuals? How do we know Facebook, Google etc. aren't using the same tactics right now?

      --

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

    3. Re:Facebook delenda est by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Well the only solution to your complaints is to kill the Internet. And who is violating your 1st amendment rights? And your taking out "key" people scenario sort of makes you sound just a tad paranoid. On the other hand there are some "key" people whose timely exit to the afterlife would actually make things better.

  6. tears innocence truth mercy = justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the lights are coming up all over now... pretending we cannot feel it seems so colonial? each our very own special reward... choose the punishment for others we would beg for ourselves? good sports with good spirits never go out of style... thanks again moms

  7. Governments of the World! by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    You will give me $100 Billion dollars or I will reveal, via social media, who among you are Bronies!

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  8. Ghost Writer? by dmomo · · Score: 1

    I initially assumed that this was written by Bennet Haselton. When I didn't see his name attached to it, I immediately wondered if he's testing Slashdot to see if his brilliant ideas invoke eye-rolls because they are associated with him, or well, they just are not that brilliant or insightful.

  9. Is this a pseudonym for John Katz? by enjar · · Score: 2

    Sweet Jesus. Will you get on with THE POINT?

  10. Voluntary colonialism by bhagwad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If people give up their data willingly, that is not colonialism. Colonialism dealt with the forcible removal of people's rights. When it's voluntary, no one has any business complaining. It's not hard to understand.

    1. Re:Voluntary colonialism by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      American colonists famously bought Manhattan island from the natives for proverbial beads and trinkets. You may call that "voluntary," but it's still abusive.

      --

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

    2. Re: Voluntary colonialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair Manhattan was shitty land to them.

    3. Re:Voluntary colonialism by bhagwad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buying Manhattan by itself couldn't be called colonialism. The real problem with colonialism is the eventual suppression of human rights, murder etc. Without human rights violations, there would be no problem with colonialism.

      Let me put in this way. I'm an Indian (as in India - the east. Not native American). The British were a problem only because there were human rights violations. Let's say the British instead had democratic elections and people freely chose a British national to govern instead of an Indian, I would have absolutely no problems with that. That would not be called colonialism.

      As long as there are no human rights violations, there's no complaint. And tech companies are not engaging in that kind of thing.

    4. Re:Voluntary colonialism by whh3 · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed.

      Just because a company/sovereignty is able to rationally appeal to a group (that they themselves have put into a subordinate position) into seeing the terms of they offered as beneficial to them, does not make it reasonable.

      For instance, the West very often convinces resource-rich nations that their (cheap) offer to buy the nation's resources is beneficial. They argue that there is no infrastructure in the country to transport their vast resources to the market -- a condition the West has helped to maintain. So, yes, the benefit to the producing nations is high but it is not fair.

      I think that there is something similar to be said for "network effect" sites like FB, Twitter, etc: You want to communicate with our users but we make sure that you cannot (closed protocols, closed source etc) unless you "voluntarily" join our site. So, the rational user makes a calculation that is reasonable to join but that does not make it fair.

      Will

      --
      remove nospam. to email!
    5. Re:Voluntary colonialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colonialism dealt with the forcible removal of people's rights.

      Colonialism is not about that. Colonialism is grabbing someone else's land and/or inflicting your values upon the conquered.

    6. Re:Voluntary colonialism by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Peter Minuit bought Manhattan Island from Native Americans who did not control the area. You may call that "fraud", but is still hilarious.

    7. Re:Voluntary colonialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say the British instead had democratic elections and people freely chose a British national to govern instead of an Indian, I would have absolutely no problems with that.

      YOU may have no problems with that, but democratic it is not. Please educate yourself on what a democracy is. It's not simply being able to vote and nothing more, but much more nuanced, complex and varied. If you don't want to call something colonialism, we can always come up with a new word for it too. Abuse is abuse, especially when it's for-profit.

      Captcha: precise

  11. China in the NYT by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm guessing it's related to a report:

    SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China is asking some U.S. technology firms to directly pledge their commitment to contentious policies that could require them to turn user data and intellectual property over to the government, The New York Times reported.

    Citing unidentified sources, the report said Beijing had distributed a document to some U.S. firms earlier this summer asking them to promise they would not harm China’s national security and would store Chinese user data within the country.

    The NYT report, which comes just ahead of President Xi Jinping's first state visit to the United States, did not identify which companies had been asked to make the pledge.

    The document also asked the companies that their products be "secure and controllable", a phrase that industry groups said could be used to force companies to build so-called back doors that would allow third-party access to systems, it said.

    Officials at the Cyberspace Administration of China did not respond to a faxed request seeking comment.

    Sources told Reuters last month that China had resumed work on a set of banking cyber security regulations it suspended earlier this year.

    The previous regulations - containing provisions that required Chinese banks to buy more domestic IT equipment and Western tech vendors to disclose secret source code if they sell to lenders - drew strong protests from foreign business lobbies, the U.S. and European governments.

    China regulators suspended the plan in April, saying they would consider feedback from domestic banks. The suspension was seen as a diplomatic victory for the Obama administration, coming shortly after visits to Beijing by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker.

    In July, China's legislature adopted a sweeping national security law that said all key network infrastructure and information systems must be "secure and controllable".

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  12. commentsubjectsaredumb by Falos · · Score: 1

    influence != power, at this nuanced resolution.

    As it is, their factories and contacts aren't quite equipped to assemble physical force. I'd be more nervous (like TFS wants) if they did.

    If a company is doing something utterly out of line, the governments still have the power to demand compliance. If TFS is talking about "influence", control, laws passed, well I have a newsflash pal that shit has been in lobbyist pockets for ages. Industrial tobacco (which isn't very tobacco) burns the country what, billions in healthcare alone? Losses in GDP from inferior workforce, from reduced achievement. And yet the system ticks on, because the money circulates towards those who sustain it.

    Sure, we should fear corporates getting out of control and holding back our/your country, but not because of "sovereign nation behavior". They're plenty happy to fuck us up while shoulder to shoulder with their mother nation.

    1. Re:commentsubjectsaredumb by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL...umm no they don't, not if the trade agreements says the corporation can skirt responsibility.

  13. Probably the wrong venue to argue about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Few people on Slashdot are going to recognize the problems with technological colonialism, much less what to do about it. So bring on your Project Loon, or your information harvesting smartphones for cheap: you can't go lower than the exploitative oil and pharmaceutical companies have already gone.

    1. Re:Probably the wrong venue to argue about this by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is the rate at which abuse can explode based on the adoption of the technology.

  14. Sovereignty is the first recuge of the scoundrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously it seems that whenever a backwater nation is doing something detrimental to human rights the sovereignty card is played.

  15. Golden Age of Colonialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The age of colonialism was a Golden Age. Now we need to go back to post-colonialism s**thole world?

  16. Down with all the new East India Companies! by idji · · Score: 1

    nt

  17. Summary by u19925 · · Score: 2

    ==> I hate tech and you should too.

    Seriously, this is one of the worst editorial ever. Some real gems:

    -- "It is unclear how much pressure these government bodies can impose on companies like Microsoft when they are so dependent on the company’s products."
    By this logic, Boeing, GE, .... are not regulated either.

    -- "In December, Lei Wu, the top internet minister in China, met with Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Jeff Bezos at their corporate offices."
    Should Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg tell them not to meet them? What does the author expect here from tech CEOs?

    -- "There is a clear desire by many technology companies to create products that consumers can use regardless of the type of platform they have chosen."
    Is there a problem here?

    -- "These emails showed that attempts to hire an employee away from another company in the collective would be a career-ending move by the person responsible."
    Are these illegal activities limited to tech companies only? What about the whole financial industry? Tech or no tech, almost all giants corporations have paid heavy fines. Just yesterday, GM accepted guilt for ignition switch and paid 900 million fine (this is in addition to billions paid for civil lawsuits). ... I can go on an on....

  18. The Sixteenth Century called... by Livius · · Score: 2

    This is not a feature of the technology industry. This is exactly the behaviour of every industry that becomes arrogant, such as the automotive industry in the twentieth century, the railroad industry before then, monopoly trading companies like the East India Company, and banking as far back as the Middle Ages if not earlier.

    1. Re:The Sixteenth Century called... by lxrocks · · Score: 1

      I was reminded of the Dutch East India Company - which featured heavily in my childhood history lessons. Let me paste an excerpt summary from Wiki pedia

      'The United East Indian Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie; VOC), referred to by the British as the Dutch East India Company,[2] was originally established as a chartered company in 1602, when the Dutch government granted it a 21-year monopoly on Dutch spice trade. It is often considered to have been the first multinational corporation in the world [3] and it was the first company to issue stock.[4] It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[5] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.[6]'

      This company had a huge influence in Africa, Middle East and Asia Pacific and planted the seeds for much of corporate tactics and strategy today. Eventually, through corruption, they became bankrupt in 1800.

      If you read the book 'IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation' by Edwin Black , by supporting the Nazi's, IBM gained a foothold in European countries after they were invaded. In essence, IBM/Germany relationship might have been the first 'Outsourcing' deal ever.

      Throughout history there are many instances of corporates colonising in some way or form

  19. Colonists must be taxed by rothschildt · · Score: 1

    If the "sovereigns" have any problem, then can anytime put an end to jurisdiction shopping and tax evasion but they won't.

  20. I welcome them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the number of failures running our government, I welcome the new american leadership that comes in the form of a tech company. They achieve what the government cant even understand.

  21. Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

    /. Monday: Microsoft and Apple are refusing to go along with government demands for data based on a court order. Conclusion: the government is repressive (or at least reactionary), those laws are unjust, and the companies resisting them are brave and noble. They have every right to challenge and resist those governments.

    /. Friday: Companies that think they are peers of democratically elected governments are a form of unaccountable imperialism making decisions for people with no accountability. They have no right to challenge or supplant those governments.

    Make up your damned minds people.

    1. Re:Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      ./ has collective paranoid schizophrenia. The whole social media industrial complex from what little I've seen.

    2. Re:Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if different people have differing opinions of things...

    3. Re:Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have every right to challenge and resist those governments.

      No they don't: They must obey the law like all corporations. The problem begins because the US government is demanding any corporation serve as a US spy despite the absence of any law allowing such demands. There is some argument over jurisdiction but either way Microsoft, like a country, cannot ignore the law of any country, including the US, because the US government says so.

    4. Re:Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot tends to be in favour of personal individual freedom. This is best served when corporations and governments are at loggerheads, and neither is able to establish the upper hand and get down to the serious business of oppressing people. Therefore, Slashdot tends to switch between corporations and government, favouring whichever is losing at the time.

    5. Re: Where you stand depends on where you sit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 post != every bodies opinion.

  22. The word is FASCISM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fascism is the correct word for what is going on.

    1. Re:The word is FASCISM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I said up there. Weirdly, a totally incoherent mess of a reply got +2.

  23. Mostly Good by r-diddly · · Score: 2

    Pretty good writeup of all the similarities... the one glaring flaw being that he got hugely distracted by "white male." Racism exists, but tech companies don't use it to justify their hegemony -- instead they use the idea that they are always trying to improve things for you. Their way is the best way (whether you consent to it or not) and not by coincidence, this "best way" always involves more technology. Their technology.

    Every empire needs some principle by which it overtly justifies all the inevitable atrocities. For the European empires of centuries past, yes, that principle was racism, along with Christianity and a couple other things. Anyone doing it now has to pretend they're not doing it, i.e. make it covert. But "making the world a better place," you can say right out loud.

  24. TTIP, TPP, CETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, sorry for the acronym soup. But the fact is that our stupid governments are helping a lot in the process with those international treaties: how about a law making process the lobbies and industry associations are privy to but *our elected officials have no access to* "for national security reasons" (the public has to feed on leaks!).

    At the end the parliaments and other democratic organs are presented with the results and can vote "yes" or "no", degraded to rubber-stamp goons.

    That's what such treaties are. Democracy my ass. The Monsantos and Googles and Apples and Microsofts *already are* our colonist overlords. The only recourse we have at the moment (besides of constantly kicking our representatives to try to get them awake) is by selectively boycotting their products.

    1. Re:TTIP, TPP, CETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck. You'll be the only one boycotting. You can't even EXIST now without giving money to some cartel. You have to eat, you have to dress, you have to have a roof on your head. If you're all alone and living the woods maybe you have half a chance. You have a family? Too late. You're hooked for life. So get over it: they won, they conquered, their victory is absolute. We? We are nothing. Hail the Corporate Age.

  25. Make up your damned minds people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy: corporations being greedy and out of control doesn't preclude national administrations being out of control.

    IOW: what do you prefer: Teh Facebook or Teh Homeland Security? -- I'd check "none of the above".