Unlawful Delay?

The Hong Kong Bar Association says the People’s Republic of China government’s move to delay Hong Kong’s legislature elections by a year “may be unlawful.”

They are mistaken; the delay is not unlawful. Unlawfulness presumes that there are laws to be broken. In a nation that rules by law—as opposed nations that operate under the principle of rule of law—any law is what the men of the People’s Republic of China government say it is. And they’ll adjust the text of a law, or rescind one or write a new one, at whim to suit their whims.

There are no laws that can be broken in the PRC. A law in that nation is simply a strip of clay, to be molded and remolded at convenience.

Hong Kong’s Elections

They were scheduled for 6 September. Now they’re delayed by the People’s Republic of China for a year; although it was Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam who delivered the news.

Officially, the delay is due to the Wuhan Virus. However, the virus situation has been known for some months, but just before the decision to delay,

12 pro-democracy candidates were disqualified from running in the poll, for reasons including perceived subversive intentions, opposition to the new security law, and campaigning to win a legislation-blocking majority.

There it is in all its naked glory: that new security law that lets the PRC government in Beijing determine what is subversive and so criminal. Included in the current definition is democracy: it’s a crime for Hong Kongers to try to elect city legislators that will represent them rather than Beijing.

The move has one additional outcome: in the absence of a City legislature, the government of the PRC will fill the legislative vacuum.

This is freedom PRC style.

A Churchman is Heard From

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[.]

Double Standards

A Twitter representative illustrates.

Notice that. Even after the moderator’s clarification of Ostrovsky’s question, Twitter considers Iran’s head mullah Khamenei routinely calling for the destruction of Israel entirely acceptable “for conversation,” but Trump’s often rude remarks on Twitter worthy of warnings if not outright censorship and removal.

But @Jack doesn’t want to impact politics or political speech. And @Jack is an honorable man; so are they all, all of Twitter honorable men.

Aside: Arsen Ostrovsky is, among other things, Executive Director of The Israeli-Jewish Congress, an Israeli-based NGO.

Internet Security

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.