Comments on: Only Nextel Could Go to China http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/only-nextel-could-go-to-china/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:30:34 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/only-nextel-could-go-to-china/comment-page-1/#comment-8278 Julian Sanchez Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:34:14 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3367#comment-8278 All possible, but again, assuming the government did try to mandate all this, the result would be a "black market" in *the modification of those computing devices* to remove the filters—or perhaps in the overseas versions of those same devices. The point is, there's no reason to think the compliant companies are going to find themselves ruined by competition with black market noncompliants—the black market devices will be *their same devices*. All possible, but again, assuming the government did try to mandate all this, the result would be a “black market” in *the modification of those computing devices* to remove the filters—or perhaps in the overseas versions of those same devices. The point is, there’s no reason to think the compliant companies are going to find themselves ruined by competition with black market noncompliants—the black market devices will be *their same devices*.

]]> By: RickRussellTX http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/only-nextel-could-go-to-china/comment-page-1/#comment-8275 RickRussellTX Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:56:59 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3367#comment-8275 "What is to prevent China from doing the same thing?" Let me answer my own question: Nothing. Unless the companies involved refuse to help them develop the technology. Which won't happen, of course. “What is to prevent China from doing the same thing?”

Let me answer my own question: Nothing. Unless the companies involved refuse to help them develop the technology.

Which won’t happen, of course.

]]> By: RickRussellTX http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/only-nextel-could-go-to-china/comment-page-1/#comment-8274 RickRussellTX Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:55:46 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3367#comment-8274 "The mandate requires that computers come with filtering software installed; it doesn’t actually require people to make use of it. Even if it did, it seems wildly implausible that you’d get a separate black market in separate filter-free devices" Give the original author credit. She's trying to look ahead; today the Green Dam software "must be installed to protect children". Tomorrow it "must be activated", and the day after that it "must apply government policy to your Web browsing". Maybe the day after that, all network traffic not routed through Green Dam is killed at the router. Don't laugh. There are criminals doing this with malicious software *today*, for reasons that are probably less pernicious. http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/30/2237256/New-Click-Fraud-Attack-Is-Stealthiest-Yet Sure, none of this is explicit yet, but it's pretty easy to see where it is going. The Chinese government realizes that they've lost the battle at the Great Firewall, there are just too many ways to disguise traffic, so now they are taking the battle to the consumer endpoints. Computer security is like layers of an onion; every layer has its deficiencies and strengths. The more layers the government can get its fingers into, the harder it will be for rank-and-file Chinese citizens to circumvent it. The trump card comes when the government uses Green Dam (or something like it) to tag all data packets with a digital signature indicating that the packet was created on an appropriately set-up computer with a government approved application and routed through government-controlled hardware. Cisco already sells systems like this for internal corporate use (Cisco Network Access Control) specifically designed to prevent the use of non-approved systems and applications on corporate networks. What is to prevent China from doing the same thing? RR “The mandate requires that computers come with filtering software installed; it doesn’t actually require people to make use of it. Even if it did, it seems wildly implausible that you’d get a separate black market in separate filter-free devices”

Give the original author credit. She’s trying to look ahead; today the Green Dam software “must be installed to protect children”. Tomorrow it “must be activated”, and the day after that it “must apply government policy to your Web browsing”. Maybe the day after that, all network traffic not routed through Green Dam is killed at the router.

Don’t laugh. There are criminals doing this with malicious software *today*, for reasons that are probably less pernicious.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/30/2237256/New-Click-Fraud-Attack-Is-Stealthiest-Yet

Sure, none of this is explicit yet, but it’s pretty easy to see where it is going. The Chinese government realizes that they’ve lost the battle at the Great Firewall, there are just too many ways to disguise traffic, so now they are taking the battle to the consumer endpoints.

Computer security is like layers of an onion; every layer has its deficiencies and strengths. The more layers the government can get its fingers into, the harder it will be for rank-and-file Chinese citizens to circumvent it.

The trump card comes when the government uses Green Dam (or something like it) to tag all data packets with a digital signature indicating that the packet was created on an appropriately set-up computer with a government approved application and routed through government-controlled hardware. Cisco already sells systems like this for internal corporate use (Cisco Network Access Control) specifically designed to prevent the use of non-approved systems and applications on corporate networks.

What is to prevent China from doing the same thing?

RR

]]>