Remember, with the Great Firewall: "China is the prototype." (My words, back when.)
They started off purchasing and as an initial market as well as testing ground for Western technology and Western technology companies.
Now, China has gained the technology and sophistication to roll their own.
But that doesn't mean they won't market it, both commercially and to aid their allies in creating and maintaining similar forms of governance and stability (at the tip of an connection, if not a gun).
So, they may be building this domestically, from the ground up. Nonetheless, the expression remains and remains apt, and concerning: "China is the prototype."
Many people around the world, in government and in private business, continue to express enormous interest in this type of monitoring and control.
In the U.K., of all places, that "bastion of democracy", leadership is openly advocating for the ability to monitor and censure all connections.
They are going to control with whom you communicate and associate, by way of real world penalties and controls.
In the U.S., what greater limit on "freedom to associate" than taking away one's ability to travel?
"It can't, won't happen here."
Ahuh. Just like outsourcing was going to elevate our employment prospects and wages. "We'll be the managers."
How did that work out?
Automation is going to get a lot more done with less hands. How do you think they are going to decide who benefits?
As I've been saying for years, the Great Firewall of China is -- or was -- the prototype.
Look at its early history: Built with "Western" technology and consulting.
Did you think all these firms were creating a one-off?
And, the following observation is perhaps stretching the interpretation a bit (or not), but I find it somewhat ironic that, after all this, it is a Chinese company that is pushing this implementation forward. Use domestic market access to acquire the knowledge (sometimes, by hook or by crook), and then use your control of your own labor market to undersell the competition.
Years ago, I was saying that China's Great Firewall was the prototype. Meaning, on an international scale, involving international participation including especially the companies then selling them the equipment and services.
Nothing I've seen has changed this basic perception.
P.S. Although, now, an increasing amount of the expertise and technology are internal.
I'm going to take this a step further. Years ago -- a decade or more -- I was saying that "China is the prototype." Early days of The Great Firewall. Initially built, by the way, with U.S. and "Western" technology and consulting.
As for the Net. It was a frontier. Now, it's settled. And those who've taken up residence are busy turning it and sealing it up, for their own purposes.
As for open, free as in speech communication. Start looking for the next, next-generation physical layer. One that is not in the hands of established and self-serving interests. Yet.
Just remember that, as with The Great Firewall and the (commercial) development and initial sales of its technologies, so too with this: China is the prototype.
Hasn't China already gone halfway to that by putting up the Great Firewall and strongly funding local "copycats" of many companies that were founded and based in the US?
I'm not suggesting that what the US is planning is good! I think it's not great. But it doesn't seem to be a pre-emptive thing that's being done.
Actually what happens in China is that homegrown tech companies will take over the market space left by Western ones, which the government is perfectly happy to let happen because
1. It keeps the tech industry domestic
2. The servers are physically inside China, guaranteeing them access to the data
This is why I've always thought that the Great Firewall's purpose is not only censorship, but also a form of Internet-age protectionism.
I read bizarre pieces from New York Times columnists ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18kristof.html ) which say "If President Obama wants to support democratic movements on a shoestring, he should support an “Internet freedom initiative” pending in Congress. This would include $50 million in the appropriations bill for these censorship-evasion technologies. The 21st-century equivalent of the Berlin wall is a cyberbarrier, and we can help puncture it."
Huh? US corporations built it. The US courts have OK'd it. Why should US taxpayers pay to circumvent the technology that S&P 500 companies like Cisco are building?
The chinese governement will have to change their policies at some point anyway.
Having the great firewall is as a side-effect hurting a lot the tech companies, no-one is actualy outsourcing tech to China. If you compare with India, the difference is massive. I can only think of one chinese tech company who succeeded internationally (AppAnnie), all the others I can think of are just copies of tech companies for the local market. At some point, they will have to choose between having great technology companies and keeping the firewall in place. The more they wait, the harder the choice is going to be for them.
The Great Firewall is probably the best investment that China has made. This has allowed them to build native alternatives and given them leverage when negotiating with foreign companies who want to do business there. Not to mention they can shield the people against foreign propaganda.
I wonder what's her stance towards the Great Firewall? This seems like the first few steps towards building something similar to it. It's quite scary to think that governments are slowly becoming more like China recently.
A great first step in encouraging technological openness would be dropping the Chinese Firewall[1,2]. Chinese companies have had a playing field slanted toward them for a while now. We should work toward open innovations in both the U.S. and China.
Don't get me wrong; I disagree with the recent U.S. approach and agree that it's not an exaggeration to call this an attack on Huawei, but we'll have far worse things to worry about than Google removing ad-blocking if we let the Chinese state dictate our online lives.
I don't think protectionism is the answer, but I don't think the Huawei CEO is being completely genuine in his presentation here. It was definitely interesting to hear his perspective though.
China's firewall is largely constructed to create technology transfer towards China.
This may be in the form of hindering sales for comapanies they may have interesting opportunities for investment, from sports shoes to embedded microchips, to financial products.
It is also part of a much greater Golden Shield network.
But a lot has changed over the past 5 years. A contrast of goals/objectives: the Golden Shield formerly largely about public security and media control, a network prided under the former premier (national harmony being the end-game), but now goals are much, much, more nationalistic at a strategic level across China.
My reading of that text doesn't suggest a copy of the great firewall of China, it rather implies e desire to mirror the Alibaba cloud, and the whole digital ecosystem that developed in China as a result of the language barrier, among other factors.
I sometimes wonder if the Chinese government is implementing the firewall at least partly to try and increase the general level of technical expertise.
They started off purchasing and as an initial market as well as testing ground for Western technology and Western technology companies.
Now, China has gained the technology and sophistication to roll their own.
But that doesn't mean they won't market it, both commercially and to aid their allies in creating and maintaining similar forms of governance and stability (at the tip of an connection, if not a gun).
So, they may be building this domestically, from the ground up. Nonetheless, the expression remains and remains apt, and concerning: "China is the prototype."
Many people around the world, in government and in private business, continue to express enormous interest in this type of monitoring and control.
In the U.K., of all places, that "bastion of democracy", leadership is openly advocating for the ability to monitor and censure all connections.
They are going to control with whom you communicate and associate, by way of real world penalties and controls.
In the U.S., what greater limit on "freedom to associate" than taking away one's ability to travel?
"It can't, won't happen here."
Ahuh. Just like outsourcing was going to elevate our employment prospects and wages. "We'll be the managers."
How did that work out?
Automation is going to get a lot more done with less hands. How do you think they are going to decide who benefits?
reply