Category Archives: regulation

“Corporate America Worries WeChat Ban Could Be Bad for Business”

Posted on by
Reply

As President Donald Trump contemplates barring the People’s Republic of China-originated and -based communications app WeChat from operating in the US, some businesses worry.

US companies whose fortunes are linked to China are pushing back against the Trump administration’s plans to restrict business transactions involving the WeChat app from Tencent Holdings Ltd, saying it could undermine their competitiveness in the world’s second-biggest economy.

Couple things about that.

Those companies shouldn’t make themselves so dependent on the People’s Republic of China for their business health.

The other thing is that those companies aren’t actually competitive in the PRC. They’re “competing” against domestic companies that get the benefit of PRC government subsidies and preferential legal treatment. Those companies also operate inside the PRC only at the suffrage of the PRC government—a suffrage that requires access to their intellectual property, backdoors in their core business software, and since 2017, PRC-based subsidiaries’ cooperation with the PRC intelligence community.

Tyranny of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) says he’ll cut off the power and water to those homes and businesses

that are in violation of gathering regulations as a means to “shut these places down permanently.”
“By turning off that power, shutting off that water we feel we can close these places down, which usually are not one-time offenders but multiple-offenders[.]”

Never mind that draconian lockdowns damage the economy to the point of doing more harm than the Wuhan Virus. Garcetti, in addition to permanently destroying businesses—and the lives of those business’ owners, operators, and employees—fully intends to destroy homes and homeowners, also.

This is the tyranny we can expect from a Progressive-Democrat Federal administration, empirically demonstrated.

A Churchman is Heard From

Posted on by
Reply

Priests for Life National Director Fr Frank Pavone, late of the Trump campaign organization, is speaking out, against a misleading fraction of the press and the Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden campaign platform. At the request of the Vatican, Pavone resigned from several campaign advisory boards.

I see headline after headline, article after article, by Catholic outlets that have given zero coverage to my years-long advocacy of the President, but now want to make it look like I’m distancing myself from him or reducing my commitment to his re-election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

No, he’s not distancing himself [paraphrased by Church Militant].

As if we are supposed to distance ourselves from the most pro-life president in history and instead embrace Biden who wants no restrictions on abortion and wants us to pay for it. … As if we are to back away from the president who is supporting the freedom of the Church more than the bishops are, and instead embrace Biden who wants to restore the [Health and Human Services] mandate which various dioceses, Priests for Life, the Little Sisters and numerous others fought all the way to the Supreme Court. … As if we are to back away from the president who defends America and instead embrace the Biden-Sanders vision of socialism. … As if we are supposed to distance ourselves from President Trump, who advocates for the rights of students to pray in school and speak their mind on campus and the rights of parents to send their children to Catholic schools or any other school of their choice, and [who] does countless other things that benefit the Church and our security and prosperity as Americans.

He went on.

It is a moral obligation for me and for all of us in the Church—clergy and laity alike—to point out the moral corruption of the Democrat platform. I will sacrifice my life before failing to do that[.]

Internet Security

Posted on by
1

There is a move afoot—and it’s making significant progress—to develop and deploy a quantum computing Internet.

A group led by the US Department of Energy and the University of Chicago plans to develop a nationwide quantum internet that could be functional in about a decade and with the potential to securely transmit sensitive information related to national security and financial services.
“What we’re moving forward on is building out quantum networks [to] someday…turn into a full second internet, a parallel internet to the digital internet,” said Paul Dabbar, the Energy Department’s Under Secretary for Science.

That would be terrific if it actually comes to fruition. Especially this part:

“Literally anything that would be transmitted encrypted today would be suitable for the quantum internet in the future,” Mr [JPMorgan Chase & Co’s Managing Director, Head of Research and Engineering, Marco] Pistoia said in an email.

Of course, that includes the personal and business correspondence of US citizens.

A problem I have with such a development, though, is this:

“A quantum network, because of physics, is by definition completely secure,” Mr Dabbar said.

No. A quantum network is not the network to end all networks. Such a network is not because of physics…by definition completely secure.

A quantum network is completely secure because of physics as we understand physics today. Security is, and always will be, an arms race between the cryptographers and their evolutions on the one hand, and the hackers and their evolutions on the other.

The biggest threat to security is just this sort of complacency.

There are other problems, and they are not unique to quantum networks, either. One such is a basic denial of service attack, where the hacker doesn’t care a single bit about encryption—at least not directly—but only in denying user access to the network or any node on it. The motive for that denial may be petty vandalism, “protest,” extortion—give me that document you’ve got encrypted on your quantum subnet (so much for quantum encryption)—to any number of other not yet imagined reasons.

Another is the phishing expedition wherein an employee is suckered into taking some action that grants the hacker access to the network.

Then there’s that personal communication secrecy—a citizen’s wish to keep his private communications private, including from the prying eyes of Government. Quantum network use would extend the tension between a citizen’s right to keep private things private and Government’s often entirely legitimate, even urgent, need to know. That, though, is just part of the noise of republican democracy.

By all means, develop and deploy the quantum Internet; it would be a huge step forward in data protection. Sooner is better.

But don’t be complacent about its security. And don’t let up on the need to protect against other forms of attack.

Opening Schools—Two Schools of Thought

Posted on by
2

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has ordered all schools—private and public—not to open until his Omnipotent State declares it safe to do so. This seems at the behest of California’s teachers unions, which fear competition from private schools—and which are losing that competition, as they’ve been doing for some years.

Catholic school tuition, for instance, costs $1,000-$4,000 per student less than the union public schools, and they provide better education—academic, discipline, moral values. And they’re ready, willing, and anxious to open on schedule.

In contrast, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (D) has sprung some of his discretionary education funds to cover school costs for families whose kids went to private schools last year, but for whom the Wuhan Virus situation has hammered their finances this year.

What’s really at stake? The virus risk to the kids in K-12 is vanishingly small: they’re simply unlikely to get infected, and among those who do, the severity of their infection very usually is slight.

The science is uncertain on how infectious the kids are when they are infected but asymptomatic. They appear not to be mutually infectious; the uncertainty is how infectious they are to the adults around them, the teachers, teacher aides (a relatively recent, and seeming featherbedding, addition to staff), administrators and staff, janitors. The data, though, are leaning increasingly in the direction of not very infectious.

There are occasional moves to stagger in-person schooling with half the students present some days, the other half the other days, at socially distanced desks, and with virtual schooling (a disastrous failure last spring, but maybe practice teaches) for the kids at home on those alternate days.

This is unnecessary. The kids are as safe from each other with the Wuhan Virus as they are with colds and flu. Bring them back.  All of them.

While the risks remain uncertain, it would be cumbersome but easily and straightforwardly doable to socially distance the teachers from the students in their classrooms. They spend a fair amount of their class time on the chalkboards at the front of the rooms, anyway. Or could easily go back to that.

Teachers unions holding out for deus ex cashina (I wish I’d thought of the term, but it’s the WSJ editors’) State and Federal interventions are acting in their petty interests rather than the interests of our children. Easier said than done, but these unions need to be decertified. Their selfish greed borders on child abuse.