Tech

We’re now very much at war with China, argues a provocative new book – TechCrunch

If China once appeared to be committed to a free-market economy, during 2021, China suddenly completely shattered that illusion. Take power With its own technology company Raise the dial About media censorship under the direction of the president who oversaw the removal of the president’s restrictions from the national constitution three years ago. (In any case, these were short-term experiments, given that China has been “dominated by absolute monarchy for thousands of years” as an NPR. I got it At that time, term restrictions were first introduced in the 1980s. )

The United States, especially Silicon Valley, has to pay many Further attention to this integration of powers is suggested by Jacob Helberg, co-chair of the Brookings Institution’s China Strategy Initiative, a former senior adviser to the Cyber ​​Policy Institute at Stanford University, and a former news policy leader at Google. doing. (He was also an adviser to US Secretary of Transportation Pete Butigeg during the presidential election.) Wire of War: Global Struggle for Technology and Power, Helberg explains how China’s “techno-total-literian” regime can first affect Chinese (its “first victims”), but Internet software and ha Why efforts to control more and more software are realistic and exist, and the rapidly expanding danger to democracy in the United States and everywhere.

Sure, he says, one doesn’t have to look more than India-it’s Receive a warning It was due to the Chinese government, which had a power outage in a city of 20 million people last year. Without the radical and unified action of private sector and federal government, it could be brought to the United States. He spoke to us yesterday in a length-edited chat.

TC: Just before the 2016 US presidential election, I started working at Google with a focus on global news policy. Given the great attention paid to Russia and its false alarm campaigns at the time, I’m surprised that you didn’t write a book about US-Russia relations.

JH: Well, there are really two fronts to this “gray” war. It’s a battle of front-end software to control what is displayed on the screen with many different players. Russia is one of the first moves in this area. Regarding foreign interference. Next is the war back-end hardware front, which focuses on the physical internet and the physical infrastructure of the internet. Ultimately, one of the reasons this book focuses primarily on China is that the most decisive area of ​​the war will be about controlling its physical Internet infrastructure. When you control the infrastructure of the Internet, you can basically control or compromise everything that runs on the Internet. If you control the back end, you can also control the front end at risk.That is why we should make far more substantial efforts [on the latter]..

TC: Backend means mobile phones, satellites, fiber optic cables, 5G networks, artificial intelligence, and more.

JC: Artificial intelligence is obviously interesting because it’s a combination of software and hardware, but it’s basically fiber optic cables, 5G satellites, low earth orbit satellites, and so on.

TC: This book quickly highlights allegations of China’s attack on India last year. This closed trains and the stock market and made hospitals dependent on emergency generators.Do you think we saw [attacks] In the United States, at least the people weren’t connected to China?

JC: One of the core attributes of the Gray War — one of the reasons governments are so obsessed with new gray zone tactics is that sometimes it’s really difficult. [assign] Attribution. Many of our internets have systems operated by private companies. Unlike China, there are actually private companies that are completely separated from the US government. Due to our privatized system, there are specific market and legal incentives for private sector to underreport cybersecurity breaches.If you are a company experiencing a cybersecurity breach, you are a victim [that] Can also be held at [account] In some cases it can be considered negligent. As a result, businesses can be very cautious about reporting cybersecurity breaches.

Attribution can also be really difficult.So it’s not impossible to see the same type of cyberattack in the United States as it did in India, but we know. [for a fact] There have been significant cyber attacks on the United States, and many in the intelligence community are concerned about the integrity of our energy grid. The Human Resources Department is clearly hacked. This is important because it basically means that China has a list of many civil servants who have access to confidential information.list [of cyber attacks] It’s very long.

TC: But you think the Indian hack was still a warning to all of us.

JH: The reason hacking has been so important historically is the first sign that if this gray war gets hotter, it could be one of the first wars it has experienced since the Revolutionary War. , Because there is actually an important physical war. The destruction of our hometown done by a foreign actor. With the exception of the 911, and with the exception of the Civil War, which was a civil war, we have never seen foreign forces actually reach our shores and carry out massive destruction. [Given] In a cyberattack in India, we can imagine that if the relationship with China really goes south, it would be a potential scenario. .. .. Well, we need to make sure that our nuclear power plant is terribly safe.

TC: How do you think you should respond to this threat? The US government is taking a very strong position on Huawei and its bid to build infrastructure in the United States. You point out that companies like Zoom have many Chinese employees and can be exposed to Chinese intelligence. Where do you draw the line? And how does the government organize measures to protect corporate rights?

JH: That is a very important question, especially for the critical turning point we are facing, especially now that the risk of China’s invasion of Taiwan is imminent. I strongly support the idea that the US Government will establish a framework for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Currently, the US government has a framework that provides the ability to consider and potentially block foreign inbound investment for national security reasons. The basic idea is to apply the same framework to outbound investments. Therefore, it basically provides the US government with tools to consider investing from the US into non-US, especially China, for national security reasons. China, it can sometimes cause some real problems.

TC: How realistic do you think it is given the financial incentives for companies to continue to expand into China?

JCH: I think these ideas are very horizon, as there are already proposals to go through the parliamentary halls heading in that direction, which are somewhat similar to what I’m proposing. In fact, many things happen momentarily in Washington when these issues are prioritized by Congress and are imminent enough to get the kind of support needed to reach the president’s desk. Unfortunately, of the crisis.

TC: Yes, no. See US gun control. But even if it looks like it in the past, it’s interesting to build this out of the idea that the United States and China are in competition, as there aren’t really any mutually observed rules.

JH: When you say it’s competition, you’re telling the embedded assumption that you can afford to lose. Because when you are in the competition, you can afford to win or lose. We are always in commercial competition with Germans and Japanese, but if Toyota sells more cars than General Motors, that’s not a big deal. It’s a market. We operate in a fair and competitive setting in accordance with mutually compliant rules. The reason “war” is much more accurate and suitable for the current situation in China is because we are talking about political struggles, and the result is about the political survival of our system. Clarity on how to prioritize the specifics needed to handle this task at the level of determination and urgency needed to produce successful results, because it gives you some spirit.

Second, when we are at war, we are willing to absorb short-term costs and produce successful results. During World War II, General Motors manufactured tanks and planes, and we really mobilized as a nation. Obviously we haven’t asked Apple to build an aircraft carrier here, but one of the short-term costs that needs to be taken seriously is how much it will cost to move the supply chain from China. That is. It’s expensive, labor-intensive, and difficult. However, the cost of blocking access to the supply chain is so high that it is worth the relatively low cost of effort, energy, and time to do this before it’s too late.

TC: In this book, you say that the separation between economic foreign policy and national security objectives dates back to the Cold War. Now you are proposing an outbound CFIUS program and moving your entire supply chain from China. What other incentives do you think private sector needs to move away from China or focus on China as a huge market opportunity?

JH: Many of the programs that worked in the past are often summarized in candies and whips. I think it’s a combination of specific penalties that are applied to reduce incentives. [investors and outfits] From engaging in a very delicate investment in China [while also] Encouraging other types of actions, such as trade with the United States and other countries that do not pose a risk to democracy, will probably be a successful and resonating mix with the business community.

TC: You also distinguish that the United States is at war with the authoritarian government of China, not the Chinese people. Very unfortunately, the message doesn’t seem to reach everyone.

JH: In my talk about the Gray War and national discussions on issues with China, this is not about the Chinese people or Chinese culture, but with the political system. [Chinese Communist Party]..

Part of the reason we are on the right side of this equation is that the first victims, and the most suffering people in the hands of the CCP, are the Chinese. It is important to remember that Uighurs, Tibetans, and political opponents are also Chinese citizens, even though they are treated as third-class citizens. It’s also important to keep in mind that China’s national news media often seeks to promote stories of racist attitudes towards China.

We’re now very much at war with China, argues a provocative new book – TechCrunch Source link We’re now very much at war with China, argues a provocative new book – TechCrunch

Related Articles

Back to top button