sdw2001

About

Username
sdw2001
Joined
Visits
145
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,342
Badges
1
Posts
17,036
  • DOJ antitrust chief Makan Delrahim looking to the past to combat tech giant monopolies

    dysamoria said:
    The conflict of interest that has me even more concerned is that this is happening under the Trump administration. I don’t see this as remotely believably aimed at fixing anticompetitive practices and helping consumers. I suspect it is the targeting of entities that are perceived as political opponents. The tech giants seem to lean left (only because tech tends to lean toward science and science tends to appear to have a left-leaning political bias) AND they also have power (money is power and information technology is power). That’s a threat to the authoritarian-leaning current administration.

    Under another administration, I’d be in support of this attempt at regulation. This administration is explicitly against regulation. This situation therefore has the odor of ulterior motivation.

    You can suspect whatever you want, but there is no evidence it's true.  Now, on the other hand, the Obama administration provably targeted political opponents with the IRS.  They targeted journalists.  They spied on Sheryl Atkinson, and tried to criminally pursue James Rosen.  They also used intelligence agencies and the State department to spy on, frame, and attempt to remove the duly-elected President.   This stuff actually and provably happened.  Right now, your position seems to be that you don't trust Orange Man, so his entire administration must be corrupt and can't be trusted to even look at these matters fairly.   

    That position doesn't make sense, no matter what you think of the Orange Man.  Under whose administration did these probes really get moving?  Hint:  It wasn't Obama.  It was under Trump and his new AG.  Moreover, Trump has worked with Cook, far more than has been publicized.  True, he goes after Bezos, but that's presumably more about WaPo.   
    FileMakerFeller
  • US DOJ targets Apple for potential antitrust probe

    pslice said:
    This is plainly in response to Apple’s privacy efforts. DOJ, Barr dummies, goes after anything that doesn’t jump to Trump’s tune. Sickening.

    DOJ has been looking at tech for years, going back to 2013.  There has been a ton of public interest and concern about Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon.  It's an issue that crosses party lines, with Trump's DOJ taking a closer look, right through Elizabeth Warren's statements about breaking up Amazon.  Whether or not they find violations is anyone's guess.  
    ChampionPowerbrasiljony0
  • ARM severs ties with Huawei, creating crisis for future phone designs


    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    dewme said:
    I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
    There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.

    The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.

    Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.

    Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?

    We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.

    Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.

    This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage. 

     
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-usa-5g-specialreport/special-report-hobbling-huawei-inside-the-u-s-war-on-chinas-tech-giant-idUSKCN1SR1EU?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

    "Europeans pushed back, too. During one closed-door session, senior representatives from European telecom operators pressed a U.S. official for hard evidence that Huawei presented a security risk. One executive demanded to see a smoking gun, recalled the U.S. official. 


    The American official fired back: “If the gun is smoking, you’ve already been shot. I don’t know why you’re lining up in front of a loaded weapon.”


    I suspect that the U.S. sees Huawei as both "personal' and "strategic" to both Xi and China, based on all of the telegraphing Huawei and China have been doing about Huawei's breadth of accomplishments and basic resistance to Huawei.

    "Politics is war by other means"

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/clausewitz-war-as-politics-by-other-means



    Or, as Tony Soprano might say, "We're going to bust their balls"


    Xi should have never backed out on the agreements that they made in the earlier trade negotiations.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/asia/trade-xi-jinping-trump-china-united-states.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    "BEIJING — China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.

    He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.

    But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.

    That has left hopes for a historic breakthrough in tatters."

    Credit to the Czechs and Australians for leading off against Huawei.


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-usa-5g-specialreport/special-report-hobbling-huawei-inside-the-u-s-war-on-chinas-tech-giant-idUSKCN1SR1EU?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews


    https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/how-australia-led-the-us-in-its-global-war-against-huawei-20190522-p51pv8.html

    What you just posted tacitly admitted that there is 'nothing in the bag' on Huawei. Something that simply confirms the madness in all this.

    However, we don't need much more than Trump's own words to see why this is happening. The fact that he is getting away with it (at least so far) says a lot about the damage he is causing around the world. I really can't see it lasting.

    China is preparing a response (according to the latest rumours) that puts Apple squarely in its crosshairs as a tit-for-tat  counter for the Huawei move and that will supposedly hit multibillion dollar Chinese investments in the US.

    The 'smoking gun' reference is a sign of how low things have got. Did he not understand that, through that reference, he will have to accept that other powers will be able to argue their cases in exactly the same way? Or does he think that only the US should be allowed that 'right'?

    This is pure, absolute protectionism. Nothing more.

    1.  What's in the bag?  The Chinese government's relationship to private industry.  

    2.  What "damage" is Trump causing around the world?  I'm quite serious.  

    3.  China does not have the economic firepower to drastically affect us.  The only thing they could really do is dump U.S. treasuries onto the market.  That would tank our economy, which in turn would tank the world economy.  It's suicide.  We could eliminate all trade with China within a few years and we'd recover just fine.  China would not.  They are 2% of our economy.  We are 20% of theirs.  

    4.  This is not protectionism.  This is called "fighting the war we have."   Trump is using tariffs to force China to make a better deal and get them to stop their blatant IP theft and cheating on trade.  The war doesn't go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist (just as every Republican and Democrat administration did before Trump).  
    anantksundarammr. hwatto_cobra
  • ARM severs ties with Huawei, creating crisis for future phone designs

    avon b7 said:
    dewme said:
    I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
    There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.

    The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.

    Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.

    Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?

    We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.

    Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.

    This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage. 


    This is incredibly naive.  It's not just an insecure platform or the specter of secret surveillance/tracking.  It's about:  

    1.  The relationship between the Communist Party/Government and "private" business.  
    2.  The requirements placed upon said business, including surveillance and cooperation with government "requests" (e.g. spying, targeting). 
    3.  China's advanced cyber and and industrial espionage programs 
    4.  The company's advanced presence in 5G technology, which will soon be deployed world-wide.  

    In the end, this about China's wish to be globally dominant in all areas.  Technology/the Internet is a key goal for them.  Imagine an Internet run, in essence, by the Communist Chinese instead of the free market West.  Huawei is not just some company that might be risky to do business with.  They are an integral part of China's government, which seeks world domination.  This is is why we are banning them.  China has had it out for us since the late 1970's.  They have been executing a 75 year plan to take us on militarily, economically and geopolitically.  By 2050, their goal is to be the world's Super Power.   

    But yeah, that Trump is nuts, huh?  
    tmaymobirdStrangeDaysmagman1979lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • 'Over the Rainbow' composer's estate sues Apple & others over 'pirated' music sales

    DAalseth said:
    Part of the problem is the murky world of who owns what. Somebody writes a song. They own it. They let someone record the song. Do they still own it, or the artist, or the record label? Depends on the contract and sometimes even the people involved don't know. I got flagged on a YouTube video once. I had used a piece of Royalty Free, Public Domain Creative Commons music. It turned out that the musician had the rights to his performance, but not to the original piece he had performed. I had to reedit the video to remove the background music. The theatres I work at buys the rights to the plays and music we put on. We can use it inside the theatre, but we are forbidden from recording it even for our private use, or even doing a live performance of a vignette outside the theatre. It's a bloody minefield. 

    It is, indeed.  I'm a music educator.  Basically everything we do is technically a violation of copyright.  There are myriad standards for what is allowed under Fair Use, as well as grey areas where it depends who you ask.  It often comes down to a common sense judgement of "are we doing the right thing?" or "what is the likelihood anyone would be sued for this?  You can't ask copyright attorneys...they'll tell you everything is illegal.  At one point, the RIAA took the legal position that the act of importing a CD to a computer was a violation.  As district and state festivals, you have to have the physical band/chorus arrangements sitting on the stage if you use temporary copies (so students don't destroy originals).  
    DAalsethn2itivguy