Can the US Stop China From Controlling the Next Internet Age? (nytimes.com)

Tech executives worry China will turn to tit-for-tat arrests of Americans in response to the detention of Meng Wanzhou. And the worries don't stop there. Kara Swisher, writing at The New York Times: Imagine, if you will (and you should), a big American tech executive being detained over unspecified charges while on a trip to Beijing. That is exactly what a number of Silicon Valley executives told me they are concerned about after the arrest this week of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of the Chinese telecom company Huawei, in Canada at the behest of United States officials. "It's worrisome, because it's an escalation we did not need," one executive said, referring to the already tense trade talks between the two countries. "What China will do, given all the existing tensions, is anyone's guess."

No one I spoke to would talk on the record, out of fear of antagonizing either side and also because no one knows exactly what is happening. But many expressed worry about the possibility of tit-for-tat arrests. While everyone focuses on the drama of the arrest -- Ms. Meng was grabbed while changing planes at the airport -- and its effect on the trade talks and stock prices, to my mind there is a much more important fight brewing, and it is about tech hegemony. Specifically, who will control the next internet age, and by whose rules will it be run?

Until recently, that answer was clearly the United States, from which the Internet sprang, wiring the world together and, in the process, resulting in the greatest creation of power and wealth in history. While China has always had a strong technology sector, in recent years it has significantly escalated its investment, expertise and innovation, with major support from the government. That hand-in-glove relationship creates obvious issues, and the Trump administration is right to stop pretending that China does not present a threat both from security and innovation perspectives. Further reading: China summons U.S. ambassador, warns Canada of 'grave consequences' if Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is not released.

Comments

How about no country

[presidenteloco]

controlling the Internet, which is global.

We really, really need to make a geography-free distributed encrypted storage layer (e.g. IPFS) much more of a reality, so that no country is in control. Preferably with TOR-like obfuscated routing also.

The Internet should become a platform on which we can build global society, economy, and democracy.

Re:How about no country

[Rick Schumann]

That's a nice idea, except for one thing: any 'agreement' like that would only work so long as every country on Earth willingly agreed to go along with it, because just like International Law, it's only enforceable so long as everyone agrees to enforce it -- and accept the enforcement. Similarly, the United Nations can make all the judgements and proclamations it wants, but no country, UN-member or not, is bound to accept it. The only way you could enforce such a global 'net neutrality' agreement is to literally cut off any non-compliant country from the Internet by refusing to route traffic to them, and that would require all other countries to agree 100%. As an example: let's say we decide that Iran should be cut off from the Internet entirely. Russia is an ally of theirs, they would not agree, so they'd still route traffic to Iran. We could possibly get countries to cut off Russia in retaliation, but all it would take is one country sympathetic to Russia and/or Iran, and the 'blockade' fails. Even if it works, what's to stop Russia, in this case, from using operatives stationed in other countries not subject to the blockade, from wreaking havoc on the rest of the Internet from their locations? They could launch attacks against vital infrastructure (i.e. electric, gas, water, air traffic control, etc) in retaliation, essentially all-out cyber-warfare. How do you stop that? By counter-attacking. Things get messy quickly.

The only way such a thing would work is if we had one Global government, and zero dissent. If we, as a species, have reached the point where we can have such a thing and actually live, as a species, globally in peace and harmony, then we wouldn't need such agreements about the Internet (or much of anything else, either). Sadly, we are not socio-politically (or mentally/emotionally, for that matter) evolved enough to accomplish such things. I wish we were.

Re:"China" is a tipping apple cart

[Rick Schumann]

We can but hope. I, too, am wondering how long over a billion people will put up with this 'god-emperor' bullshit their current 'leader' is pulling. Also, while I can't say things are all Hearts and Flowers and good-times-for-all here in the West, and despite Chinas' best efforts, the Chinese people know damned well what life is like outside of China, and without a doubt many of them would rather have our lifestyle and our problems than continue living the way they are under the thumb of the Communist Party. Never know, the Horse May Learn to Sing yet.