Tl;dr: Google and IBM collaborate on the Power architecture, which is widely used in scientific computing. One of the other companies collaborating on it is a Chinese company that sells chips to the Chinese state among other clients.
By this sort of Kevin Bacon logic you can basically tie anyone to anything.
> The OpenPower Foundation — a nonprofit led by Google and IBM executives with the aim of trying to “drive innovation” — has set up a collaboration between IBM, Chinese company Semptian, and U.S. chip manufacturer Xilinx. Together, they have worked to advance a breed of microprocessors that enable computers to analyze vast amounts of data more efficiently.
I think in order to satisfy the Intercept's perspective, the US would have to technologically starve China.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of the connection. Semptian's website says they are working with IBM, and the OpenPower Foundation says they are as well. There isn't even 1 degree of separation between IBM and Semptian.
That's how I see it. In 2005 I worked at a tech startup that was building out surveillance camera networks for Australia to spy on its rail system. I was aghast and the enormity of the project and how much money was involved and that was 2005. That project ultimately failed, but later ones of course have proceeded.
Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.
>That's how I see it. In 2005 I worked at a tech startup that was building out surveillance camera networks for Australia to spy on its rail system. I was aghast and the enormity of the project and how much money was involved and that was 2005. That project ultimately failed, but later ones of course have proceeded.
>Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.
What exactly has Google, IBM, and Xilinx given Semptian? The only thing I can find is that they are all collaborating on POWER through the OpenPOWER foundation? Specifically,
> Together, they have worked to advance a breed of microprocessors that enable computers to analyze vast amounts of data more efficiently.
Honestly, this just makes the story's credibility even worse: the author is just picking a foundation with a lot of members and linking all of them to authoritarian regimes by virtue of having one or two members who may be helping government surveillance.
not really, the evil is in the details, as far as I know, while there are many members listed, the China ones are the real ones paying a _lot_ for this and are the (probably only) ones really serious about this.
This raised the question in my mind: is the author being dishonest, or does he just have a different perspective and different values than me? Or alternately, have I not thought through my own values sufficiently to see that I should expect the same outcome as he does?
If I assume the author is being honest, the rationale must be something like this. The Chinese government is a serial human-rights violator. Most recently, it has been known to put people into reeducation camps on the basis of having a minority religious affiliation, but that's just one of many examples. Companies ought not sell to or provide services for human rights violators. This restriction should apply transitively as much as is reasonably possible.
Now, given that there is a company in this foundation that is working with the Chinese government, it is reasonable to anticipate that the efforts of the foundation would benefit the Chinese government. Therefore, all of the other companies that are participating in the foundation are tainted by transitivity. They should either oust the one company working with China, or else themselves leave the foundation.
I'm not sure where my agreement with this author breaks down, but it is somewhere before his conclusion. For me, the big question is how open standards and software jive with this transitive interpretation of moral responsibility. Anyone working on OpenCV or TensorFlow is working on something that could reasonably be anticipated to assist the Chinese government in the repression of its citizens. Same goes for anyone who publishes in the ML space. But I think the idea that one should not do these things is absurd, so I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that line is far short of Google's or IBM's participation in this foundation.
That said, I think I could be convinced that companies working mainly with the Chinese government should not be allowed to sit on the foundation. But I'm not sure even of that.
Both articles are essentially the same story. The Intercept is just milking it from two different angles, focusing on either China or Middle Eastern dictatorships as the evil regime Semptian is selling to.
I’m of the opinion that US Companies (or companies operating in the us) selling software/hardware that is designed for the purpose of violating human rights or the terms of the US constitution should be taxed at 100% of their international profits.
If you don’t believe the human rights or the US constitution are of any value you shouldn’t get to use those protections to profit. Move your company to China or wherever, and operate in the constraint you enforce on others.
It’s not expressly design for that purpose - but censored search engines, search engines that report searches, software designed to spy on everyone, routers that intercept and report content people read, software managing concentration camps, etc all would.
Much like the numerous suits against IBM for supporting the holocaust and the gratuitous human rights abuses in South Africa. Most of which were dropped due to the threats of delaying payments or the amount of time passed.
The only way to stop companies from supporting human rights abuses is to remove their revenues from such. Google has demonstrated that given the choice it will happily support human rights abuses, while making use of the resources available in the US due to the existence of the constitution.
> Google has demonstrated that given the choice it will happily support human rights abuses
You appear to be confusing Google with Apple. Google does not do business in China proper. Apple does and has handed over the keys to access any Chinese user's iCloud data at will.
No, it really didn't - it put the servers in china, much like in the US data is held in the US, and increasingly the EU data is held in the EU. The decryption keys are held on user devices. Apple never has access to those keys. By design.
It's a very google-centric mindset that insists a company needs to have access to your data to be profitable. Apple's security white paper goes into great detail to explain how it ensures proper encryption of data, they have spent years working to remove all data that they have access to.
> The decryption keys are held on user devices. Apple never has access to those keys.
You are confusing iMessages with iCloud. The keys to decrypt everybody's iCloud mail, iCloud drive files, photos, calendar, app backups, etc. are held on the server. By design. For Chinese users, these servers are now controlled by the PRC. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/5-things-you-...
The distinction for iMessages is also not relevant in practice. Whoever controls the keyserver (China) has the ability to wiretap all iMessages conversations. (Lie to Alice about Bob's public key, read the message Alice encrypted for Bob, and then encrypt with Bob's public key and send on to Bob.) https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark
I don't understand how Apple employees can justify working there knowing that they are directly helping the Chinese government find and disappear dissidents. They have not even tried to protest.
What if those same companies are helping to power the NSA illegally collecting and storing data on Americans without a warrant? Is that different to you? Where in this Constitution you elude to does it permit that? I can show you precisely where it doesn't...
No. But it's also illegal for them to do that, and it's disgusting that the elected officials of the government continue to allow it to do so.
Of course it's also only able to do it because for-profit companies are being paid for their assistance. I would argue that makes them criminals (knowingly aiding a criminal attack), and as such they should be charged with those crimes. The US government basically pleads sovereign immunity to violations of its own criminal attacks on US citizens, so charging the companies that assists them with those crimes, and also removing their profit motive, would hopefully kill off the NSA, ICE, and the DHS's continuous violations of the constitution.
This just seems like investment in open infrastructure? Any tool can be used for evil. Are contributions to the Linux kernel, then, a kind of contribution to the surveillance state?
What a ridiculous criticism. The media hysteria is boiling over in completely nonsensical ways.
27 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 72.0 ms ] threadTl;dr: Google and IBM collaborate on the Power architecture, which is widely used in scientific computing. One of the other companies collaborating on it is a Chinese company that sells chips to the Chinese state among other clients.
By this sort of Kevin Bacon logic you can basically tie anyone to anything.
I think in order to satisfy the Intercept's perspective, the US would have to technologically starve China.
That said, China isn’t the USSR or the PRC of old, but it’s also not the UK or France either. So there is good reason for questions and skepticism.
Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.
ataturk 7 minutes ago
>That's how I see it. In 2005 I worked at a tech startup that was building out surveillance camera networks for Australia to spy on its rail system. I was aghast and the enormity of the project and how much money was involved and that was 2005. That project ultimately failed, but later ones of course have proceeded.
>Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.
> Together, they have worked to advance a breed of microprocessors that enable computers to analyze vast amounts of data more efficiently.
This means little to nothing: pretty much every company in the field is doing this. Here's a list of current members: https://openpowerfoundation.org/membership/current-members/. This is a pretty large list.
If I assume the author is being honest, the rationale must be something like this. The Chinese government is a serial human-rights violator. Most recently, it has been known to put people into reeducation camps on the basis of having a minority religious affiliation, but that's just one of many examples. Companies ought not sell to or provide services for human rights violators. This restriction should apply transitively as much as is reasonably possible.
Now, given that there is a company in this foundation that is working with the Chinese government, it is reasonable to anticipate that the efforts of the foundation would benefit the Chinese government. Therefore, all of the other companies that are participating in the foundation are tainted by transitivity. They should either oust the one company working with China, or else themselves leave the foundation.
I'm not sure where my agreement with this author breaks down, but it is somewhere before his conclusion. For me, the big question is how open standards and software jive with this transitive interpretation of moral responsibility. Anyone working on OpenCV or TensorFlow is working on something that could reasonably be anticipated to assist the Chinese government in the repression of its citizens. Same goes for anyone who publishes in the ML space. But I think the idea that one should not do these things is absurd, so I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that line is far short of Google's or IBM's participation in this foundation.
That said, I think I could be convinced that companies working mainly with the Chinese government should not be allowed to sit on the foundation. But I'm not sure even of that.
If you don’t believe the human rights or the US constitution are of any value you shouldn’t get to use those protections to profit. Move your company to China or wherever, and operate in the constraint you enforce on others.
Much like the numerous suits against IBM for supporting the holocaust and the gratuitous human rights abuses in South Africa. Most of which were dropped due to the threats of delaying payments or the amount of time passed.
The only way to stop companies from supporting human rights abuses is to remove their revenues from such. Google has demonstrated that given the choice it will happily support human rights abuses, while making use of the resources available in the US due to the existence of the constitution.
You appear to be confusing Google with Apple. Google does not do business in China proper. Apple does and has handed over the keys to access any Chinese user's iCloud data at will.
It's a very google-centric mindset that insists a company needs to have access to your data to be profitable. Apple's security white paper goes into great detail to explain how it ensures proper encryption of data, they have spent years working to remove all data that they have access to.
You are confusing iMessages with iCloud. The keys to decrypt everybody's iCloud mail, iCloud drive files, photos, calendar, app backups, etc. are held on the server. By design. For Chinese users, these servers are now controlled by the PRC. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/5-things-you-...
The distinction for iMessages is also not relevant in practice. Whoever controls the keyserver (China) has the ability to wiretap all iMessages conversations. (Lie to Alice about Bob's public key, read the message Alice encrypted for Bob, and then encrypt with Bob's public key and send on to Bob.) https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark
I don't understand how Apple employees can justify working there knowing that they are directly helping the Chinese government find and disappear dissidents. They have not even tried to protest.
Of course it's also only able to do it because for-profit companies are being paid for their assistance. I would argue that makes them criminals (knowingly aiding a criminal attack), and as such they should be charged with those crimes. The US government basically pleads sovereign immunity to violations of its own criminal attacks on US citizens, so charging the companies that assists them with those crimes, and also removing their profit motive, would hopefully kill off the NSA, ICE, and the DHS's continuous violations of the constitution.
What if those same companies were making nuclear bombs and blowing up large cities? Neither happens, so I cannot understand your point.
What a ridiculous criticism. The media hysteria is boiling over in completely nonsensical ways.