New IP is an attempt to redesign IP into a top-down governance model. It is not a new "internet protocol." It is a "new internet" protocol where central authority is part of the design.
The CCP can force Chinese to use this, but why would anyone else use it? I can’t see the USA or EU changing architectures unless our governments mandate it, and I see no moves in that direction. We are barely able to get people to implement IPv6 after 20 years of kicking people in the ass to do it, so it will not happen organically.
China also provides foreign aid all over the world. I would guess quite a few countries would be willing to consider this in exchange for subsidized infrastructure.
Money. Australia is heavily influenced by Chinese policy, look at their stance on privacy / encryption /
etc. Eventually this will percolate to the rest of the world. It will take decades but I’m sure it will happen. Younger generations are already pro censorship.
The next big destination many people have with respect to internet penetration is Africa. And CCP is ahead of west in capturing African market by working best with dictators and being competitive. For example they sold their telecom towers very cheap, and they work best with only chinese phones. With this cycle, china owns major share of African mobile business in just a few years. It would be easier to to get their IP in there.
Dictators aside, the Chinese are considered fairer trading partners than most (possibly all) western countries. ~1000 years of African history makes this point very clear.
That statement of AU PM is definitely worthy of retard. But why do you think it is caused by Chinese influence? From what I understand being able to have "master key" is a wet dream of every government without exception even if said government wants to have nothing to do with China.
US's DMCA laws and Disney-promoted extended copyright terms infected the rest of the world despite not technically being mandatory. I can see more than a slight parallel here whereever a country is within China's sphere of influence.
Everything you buy is from China. If China says it's the new standard, your iPhone or Android or Dell or HP or Playstation or Smart TV will support it.
Have a translation layer in between? That's basically the situation right now, with GFW sitting in between the chinese internet and the rest-of-the-world internet.
> What happens when trillion-dollar American luxury device manufacturers are no longer able to contact their manufacturers in China?
The relationship is mutual and losing manufacturing contracts with large international companies would deeply affect the Chinese economy.
Admittedly, the Chinese government has very long range vision compared to other governments and can unilaterally enforce austerity on their working class population in ways democratic regimes cannot.
That doesn't mean that China can alienate its international business partners with impunity.
Does anyone have a link to the actual details of the proposal? For a tech focused forum like HN, I would expect to see the actual technical detail rather than just political commentary.
The whole article is about the political impact of the proposal, but did not discuss the technical details. What the hell is the New IP? How is topdown governance achieved under this new protocol? That is what I want to know. Not sentences like CCP is evil.
china is one of the countries that we in america get propagandized to about. when i hear things about china, russia, venezuela, north korea, cuba, iran, and probably some i've missed, i assume i've recieved no information from what i've heard.
Is it only me, or are half of the companies interested in a similar model.
Media streaming, online shopping, banking, or social media are all very interested in your real identity and a strict controlling their interaction with you.
Some social media is interested in my real identity. Reddit, and to some extend twitter is not. Reddit doesn't even care if you have multiple accounts, as long as it is not to evade bans.
Bankers are only interested in my actual identity because the government force them to.
Amazon is only interested in my identity to sell me stuff.
This is a hilarious scaremongering article written for those who are clueless. No surprise as it turns out it is from the comically named neocon outfit Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which is the most bellicose warmongering think tank in DC. They never met a poor third world country that they didn’t want bombed.
As for 6G the reason we have no leadership is that Lucent was run into the ground by a mindset of constantly meeting Wall Street earnings expectations.
Huawei surpassed the Europeans (Ericsson, Nokia Siemens etc...) because they invested and innovated and bet the farm on the foundational technology invented by Erdal Arikan.
> Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls “New IP,” designed to build “intrinsic security” into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet
We forced the world after 9/11 to block anonymous Internet. You cannot get Internet anywhere without ID. You used to be able to get prepaid SIM cards in most countries till we put pressure on them.
> Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway.
The ITU is the right address that most countries accept as the standards bodies for telecommuncations interoperability. By the way we don’t have to abide by the ITU or the world as we routinely ignore the UN anyways.
In fact there is precedence of us going our own way. We adopted CDMA and majority of the world adopted GSM in the first phase of the digital mobile adoption. They only truly converged on a mass market level about 15-20 years later with 4G.
> We forced the world after 9/11 to block anonymous Internet. You cannot get Internet anywhere without ID. You used to be able to get prepaid SIM cards in most countries till we put pressure on them.
In the UK at least a pre paid sim is 99p if you buy it from a shop, you can pay with cash and there's no registration procedure. I doubt we're the only country in the world that works like this.
Even when I signed up for DSL in the UK, they didn't ask for personal details that could be verified. Didn't need a credit check either. I'm sure somebody there could make the connection to me but it's not like I needed to show any kind of identification.
Most free public Wi-Fi in the US (libraries, universities, airports, malls, hospitals) don't require ID to use, and usually only require accepting a ToS.
And the store staffs won’t be able to activate the SIM if his place of residence and driver’s license or national ID card together can’t be verified at the other end of the FAX machine.
It's extremely easy to get anonymous Internet in the United States. Open wifi access points are everywhere and prepaid SIMs don't require any sort of ID or registration.
> We forced the world after 9/11 to block anonymous Internet.
This is just wrong. Whenever I travel I just get a 30 day or so SIM card. They've available everywhere. Not to mention WIFI access points here and there, e.g. at hotels, coffee shops etc.
American exceptionalism all too often seems to cut both ways.
Particularly in the US citizens who have grown up in the aftermath of 9/11 amid their hyper power at the height of its power having a decade long meltdown, I have noticed a near complete lack of perspective regarding the agency of other countries, especially allies.
You completely avoided the main point of the article which is people having their internet access revoked becoming equivalent to losing your drivers license. Right now you cannot be banned from the internet, the only way government can withhold internet access is through imprisonment, the internet should be open for all.
Theo Lebryk is an intern at the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is also a Yenching Scholar at Peking University, where he is pursuing a Master’s in China Studies. His research focuses on media in China. He previously graduated from Harvard University with a joint concentration in Social Studies and East Asian Studies and a minor in Computer Science. After graduation, Theo was awarded a Michael C. Rockefeller Fellowship to explore homeless and food culture in Hong Kong.
That's egregiously against the site guidelines. We've asked you not to post like this multiple times before. Not only have you kept doing it, you've mostly been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, so I've banned the account.
I hate to ban an account that has been around for over 10 years, but you can't vandalize HN like this. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
They are proposing New IP system that requires people to register with their real ID in order to use the internet anywhere, not just in China. That’s pretty dystopian in my book.
You're not addressing any of the dystopian points.
China is a tyranny that treats its people like cattle, and when they present a tool that would give them absolute control over their population, all you can do is attack the technical aspects?
I wonder is it possible to isolate a whole country from the rest of the Internet? There are so many services in China that are almost exclusive to people with a Chinese phone number and a WeChat / Alipay account. That sealing the rest of the Internet does not affect Chinese residents using those services.
I don't get why you're being downvoted. WeChat has turned into an OS thanks to its mini-programs. It's also integrated with mass surveillance and censorship technology as a built-in.
The Web is bad as it is. Replacing it with a proprietary extension of the Chinese government (or any government, for that matter) through slow adoption would be a tragedy.
Presumably the protocol would also embed this data into the very connections you're establishing to other servers. IPv4 and IPv6 have ways to correlate data, but putting it directly into the connection is on a whole new level when censorship is implemented.
I am genuinely curious about CCP plans if they do become a dominant influence in the world. They are attempting to reprogram Tibetans and Uighurs to erase their culture and make them Chinese. Is that the plan for all other cultures? Is the goal to make us all Chinese speaking Chinese?
Unlike the Soviet Union they could care less about other countries except for Taiwan , protecting the dominance of the CCP and being able to trade without interference.
> We need to use this plan to limit the 1st US amendment, and the equivalent EU laws. Otherwise wrong-think will prevail.
Nothing good happens when government tries to regulate thought. Nothing good comes of the government pointing a gun at citizen's head that can be fired without due process.
"Jonathan Swift (30 November 1667 – 19 October 1745) was an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories), poet and Anglican cleric who became Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, hence his common sobriquet, "Dean Swift"."
I guess that’s one of the “silver linings” of China’s ascendancy to a global superpower - it will put their system up against liberal democracies and the choice will be clear - either a system where the rights of the individual are front and center or a system where they are not.
China has made it’s position clear - the west can continue with liberal democracy if they want. China is taking a new path - a better path if you ask them. The government will play a key role in guiding the country - the economy, social norms, education, etc. The rights of the individual will be subservient to those of the needs of the country.
And make no mistake - they believe their system will win in the end.
Honestly, it's a little of both. There are loud groups of people online that will be fine with this kind of logic. In fact there is a good number of those individuals right here on HN. Essentially I outlined what their talking points will be.
At the same time, I'm tired of arguing for rights. I'm partially willing to let people burn the system to the ground to prove how right they are with removing rights from those they think to be undesirable.
I assume this comment chain, at least mine, will be hidden by dang by the end of the weekend.
My ability to detect sarcasm was irreparably mutilated on EFNet IRC in the '90s. For me, posts like that one exist in a superposition of sarcasm and non-sarcasm until something forces a collapse.
It's becoming clear that their values are completely different from the west. Unfortunately the problem is that consumers here love low prices, but they also love employment rights, social security, free healthcare and other signs of an advanced civilisation - which costs money. The hypocrisy of the society is that they don't care if the product they buy was made in a country that don't respect human rights and was probably made by forced labour or children. As long as they don't see the exploitation, then it does not bother them.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to create a campaign that would show consumers how they are condoning human rights abuse by buying these products, because big corporations would have to lose a big stream of money.
I would love to see the law changed, so that companies would have to print country of origin of the product, and additional information kind of when you buy eggs, you can see if it is from free range hens or caged. So it should be mandatory to write if product was made using forced labour, children or low paid workers.
Next step, I would like to see mandatory filters in online stores, where you could filter out products made in countries that abuse human rights. If you want to buy something on Amazon, that is not coming from China it is extremely time consuming - it should be easy.
Finally, products coming from such countries should have a levy, so that the cost of making product in China would be similar as if it was done locally.
If we are going to continue supporting China, all the things that they do, will become appealing to sociopathic politicians here and eventually they'll be copying it.
The complex reality of global supply chains works against this.
We would have to further "break" the fungibility of goods and money to truly enforce this, and ensure we have full provenance and reporting along the supply chain. This does exist in a lot of cases but is complex to enforce and subject to laundering.
Chips from X, materials from Y, finished in country Z. Of course complex modern products can have hundreds of suppliers or more in a tree fanning backwards. Compositions backwards in supply chain can change quickly based on cost of materials or output of Bangalore factory vs Taiwan factory in a particular month, for example.
"Comes from China" is not a binary proposition and if you try to assign a percentage you can come up with many different numbers, all of which can vary over time.
Also, is Taiwan part of China in the labelling scheme? Who makes the decision that e.g. Xinjiang uses slave labour? Is the information provided to the consumer "value neutral" and then you provide a lens on top? Or is there a political body writing the values? Who, exactly? If it's an international forum, is China invited?
Consumers might want to decide based on their sense of global justice, their environmental awareness, their opposition to authoritarian regimes, the presence/absence of potentially harmful substances, religious preference or along many other axes.
Companies with ESG frameworks are having a bear of a time just eliminating e.g. modern slavery from their supply chains, and they have a bunch of leverage with their suppliers and more insight than their customers.
I don't like the lack of information about what we buy either but I'm not sure that fully politicising every purchase is an easy answer.
You could automate product filtering so you only ever see those that meet your personal ESG preferences. Such smart filters could eventually use supply-chain blockchains for verification.
I think looking at the "new IP" proposal and concluding that "the Chinese have really different values then the west" is myopic. The chinese government is authoritarian and has a clear agenda. Assuming it reflects the values of the people is stupid. The chinese people may be goaded into nationalism and tricked (via propaganda) or pressured into supporting the government, but I think it's not correct to conclude from the government's actions anything about the people's values
I think the propaganda is on the other side. The government gained support over its recent initiatives in building strong economy, city infrastructure projects, vastly improved public services which affects most people’s daily routines.
Yes, people like it when their lives improve. Sure this has convinced some people the chinese government is doing a good job and will continue to do a good job. But they doesn't change the values of those people. The chinese government is a draconian dystopia. Saying "the propaganda is on the other side" implies that the Chinese government doesn't do propaganda, which is a pretty stupid thing to imply in my opinion. Dictatorships like China do not generally do well for their people for very long.
> The hypocrisy of the society is that they don't care if the product they buy was made in a country that don't respect human rights and was probably made by forced labour or children. As long as they don't see the exploitation, then it does not bother them.
I care, but the situation is much like conflict minerals. China is going to be relevant in the supply chain of almost any technological product, or at the very least, the tools that went into making it.
Personally I would pay double for products to avoid China, but I do not believe most people can even afford that trade-off if it was practical (and didn't require heaps of upfront research when buying everything from washing machines to batteries).
I am morally opposed.