The National Defense Strategy is Not

[flagg]

Great thoughts, and we're potentially already seeing the One Platform, One Network with Huawei. Perhaps digital hegemony enables economic and political hegemony?

Last month Germany resisted heavy US pressure to ban Huawei, greenlighting its 5G buildout.

Now add the UK to the list:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12224897

[flagg]

Unlike the “surveillance capitalism”-like WeChat, Xi’s App feels far more “littleredbook.com” forced.

But if we look at them both thru a geodigital export “product” lens:

WeChat is for citizen users (consumers) who desire opportunity
Xi’s App is for sovereign users(enterprise) who desire continuity

Another timely article, this time on Chinese geodigital exports for “enterprise” customers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/t...overnment.html

[flagg]

The hits keep coming, now in 5 Eyes partner NZ:

One Belt One Road sales pitch by China’s Ambassador to NZ Wu Xi, in our biggest national news source:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12225605

NZ Trade Minister firmly committed to One Belt, One Road:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12225644

Huawei/5G issue sidestepped, but increasingly likely to mirror UK accessibility to Huawei/5G

[Bill Moore]

The following article discusses the cybersecurity threat that 5G will present regardless of who provides the hardware infrastructure. The software presents the most significant cybersecurity threat. It goes on to argue that Trump administration's race to win the 5G race has resulted in security shortcuts. The former FCC director explains 5G designs need to address security as a forethought, not an afterthought. Makes me wonder if 5G could empower individuals to create mass chaos and disruption if they can hack into the system? Super empowered actors?

The article points out that many 5G capability claims are hyperbole based on the limitations of the 5G wavelength to penetrate buildings and the limited range of the wavelength; thus it would require 5G antennas on almost every building in a city to make the IOT effective. I'll watch the experts debate it over the next few months and years.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annal...the-5g-network

[Bill Moore]

Another timely article, this time on Chinese geodigital exports for “enterprise” customers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/t...overnment.html

The video in this article was interesting, but not convincing in my view. Xi uses surveillance technology, not just cameras, but comprehensive monitoring of its citizens, to maintain party control. Xi is exporting this technology to other autocrats who hope to do the same. It will assist in creating a new world order where Arab Springs are less of a threat to autocratic rulers. However, the Ecuador example wasn't convincing. Not a great comparison, but I liken it to a police officer using an automatic rifle to protect citizens to a criminal using an automatic rifle to terrorize or murder citizens. Surveillance technology can be used to protect citizens or oppress them, and in high crime areas it may protect them. We should have enough data by now to see if the UK's use of surveillance technology has reduced crime or at least enabled law enforcement to capture the culprits.

Reference the articles on New Zealand, I can understand the desire to reject protectionism, but I think they're buying into Xi's web of deceit, no country promotes protectionism of its businesses more than China. They can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Reference the articles on Germany and UK ignoring U.S. pressure not to purchase Huawei; I think the U.S. is coming to terms that it has reduced power to influence in a multipower world order. Diplomacy and economic incentives are more important than having the preponderance of military power.

[davidbfpo]

Replying to Bill:

We should have enough data by now to see if the UK's use of surveillance technology has reduced crime or at least enabled law enforcement to capture the culprits.

Bill,

The impact of the often pervasive use of CCTV, whether by public agencies or private operators and now increasingly private individual's homes, is very moot. It did have an effect on some crimes, such as vehicle crime in car parks and street robbery in city centres. The police have almost come to the point "no CCTV, no investigation" IMHO and for serious "high end" crime, such as murder or terrorism, it is essential part of the investigative picture that can be assembled.

For multiple reasons, with reduced budgets to the fore, crime is now growing - particularly vehicle crime and violent street crime. Property crime and in particular fraud (some assess it as a third of all crime) even if CCTV exists is not being investigated. One big urban force admitted 40% of all reported crime is filed upon submission.

Crime is not static, those committing it change and the victims do too. Hence the widespread use of CCTV inside and outside private homes. So the burglar(s) simply wear masks and hats, let alone gloves to ensure no prints are left behind.

I would argue that CCTV is no longer a deterrent to most crimes, even more so when there is little prospect of an investigation. All the other technological options for "high end" crime, such as financial data and movement data stumble when there is no useful imagery.

It is difficult to find public examples of the value of LPR (ANPR in UK parlance) and a huge amount of data is collected every day. Here is one, a long running series of non-violent house burglaries in London and eventually a Manchester unknown suspect was identified. "Reading between the lines" he was finally caught in a surveillance operation. The national detection rate for house burglary is 3% and has been static for thirty plus years.
Link:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/24/wimbledon-prowler-finally-admits-raids-decade-burglaries/

[davidbfpo]

Citing BIll again (without going back):

Xi uses surveillance technology, not just cameras, but comprehensive monitoring of its citizens, to maintain party control.

My limited understanding of China suggests there is a strong tradition of conformity by the population to their rulers, provided there is food to eat, stability, no bandits and an element of justice. With the dramatic increase in urbanisation, where individuals can become anonymous, China has focused on technology to reinforce existing controls, e.g. the "internal" passport. Controlling movement is another, potent as most traffic is the state-provided bus and train networks. Just a few thoughts.

[Bill Moore]

Replying to Bill:

Bill,

The impact of the often pervasive use of CCTV, whether by public agencies or private operators and now increasingly private individual's homes, is very moot. It did have an effect on some crimes, such as vehicle crime in car parks and street robbery in city centres. The police have almost come to the point "no CCTV, no investigation" IMHO and for serious "high end" crime, such as murder or terrorism, it is essential part of the investigative picture that can be assembled.

For multiple reasons, with reduced budgets to the fore, crime is now growing - particularly vehicle crime and violent street crime. Property crime and in particular fraud (some assess it as a third of all crime) even if CCTV exists is not being investigated. One big urban force admitted 40% of all reported crime is filed upon submission.

Crime is not static, those committing it change and the victims do too. Hence the widespread use of CCTV inside and outside private homes. So the burglar(s) simply wear masks and hats, let alone gloves to ensure no prints are left behind.

I would argue that CCTV is no longer a deterrent to most crimes, even more so when there is little prospect of an investigation. All the other technological options for "high end" crime, such as financial data and movement data stumble when there is no useful imagery.

It is difficult to find public examples of the value of LPR (ANPR in UK parlance) and a huge amount of data is collected every day. Here is one, a long running series of non-violent house burglaries in London and eventually a Manchester unknown suspect was identified. "Reading between the lines" he was finally caught in a surveillance operation. The national detection rate for house burglary is 3% and has been static for thirty plus years.
Link:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/24/wimbledon-prowler-finally-admits-raids-decade-burglaries/

Thanks, David, I was hoping you would provide some expert commentary on this issue. I agree with your point that crime is not a statistic, but most governments use data, arguably incorrectly, to inform their decisions. Assuming the data you provided would come to the same conclusions in other countries, then the data would undermine China's argument that the surveillance technology improves public security. Hard to argue it doesn't improve party control. I think there is a general perception that pervasive surveillance will reduce crime, but as you pointed out a few simple tricks hat and mask tricks can defeat it. Furthermore, if there isn't a credible response or post-event investigation then it serves little purpose.

Maybe when AI compliments surveillance technology the story will change, but for now, it seems the more we try to replace the beat cop with so-called modern approaches to law enforcement crime increases. Not unlike COIN, we had many small unit leaders in the U.S. who don't believe in presence patrols (beat cop). Yet it is a known fact that presence patrols deter insurgent activity, connect and increase trust between security forces with the local population, and increases situational awareness/intelligence. Simple common sense tactics almost always trump high-end sexy tactics (find, fix, finish) to achieve enduring stability.

[flagg]

Thanks, David, I was hoping you would provide some expert commentary on this issue. I agree with your point that crime is not a statistic, but most governments use data, arguably incorrectly, to inform their decisions. Assuming the data you provided would come to the same conclusions in other countries, then the data would undermine China's argument that the surveillance technology improves public security. Hard to argue it doesn't improve party control. I think there is a general perception that pervasive surveillance will reduce crime, but as you pointed out a few simple tricks hat and mask tricks can defeat it. Furthermore, if there isn't a credible response or post-event investigation then it serves little purpose.

Maybe when AI compliments surveillance technology the story will change, but for now, it seems the more we try to replace the beat cop with so-called modern approaches to law enforcement crime increases. Not unlike COIN, we had many small unit leaders in the U.S. who don't believe in presence patrols (beat cop). Yet it is a known fact that presence patrols deter insurgent activity, connect and increase trust between security forces with the local population, and increases situational awareness/intelligence. Simple common sense tactics almost always trump high-end sexy tactics (find, fix, finish) to achieve enduring stability.

As I understand it in China, the social scoring model to “nudge” positive behaviour incorporates local block wardens/informants.

Party “beat cops” as human observation sensors and behaviour “nudgers”?

Stasi informants mashed up with smart phones.

Agreed on the NYTimes article on Ecuador not being very convincing as it represents an earlier generation of surveillance technology.

CCTV combined with improving facial recognition, combined with gait analysis, combined with smartphone tracking, combined with e-commerce and media consumption, combined with social scoring, equals individualised/personalised analytics.

THX1138 with Chinese characteristics?

I know there are a few reports claiming A.I./ML based surveillance in China is overblown(comically in some case).

But if history is a teacher, we have consistently seen how linear human thinking over estimates the short term and way, way under estimates the long term application of new technology.

[Bill Moore]

Flagg,

The point is China claims it will reduce crime, so far little evidence that is true. It is a propaganda statement to conceal its real purpose. It clearly supports population control if the focus is protecting the party. Especially the comprehensive surveillance you point out.

[flagg]

Flagg,

The point is China claims it will reduce crime, so far little evidence that is true. It is a propaganda statement to conceal its real purpose. It clearly supports population control if the focus is protecting the party. Especially the comprehensive surveillance you point out.

Hi Bill,

Here’s that article/story I was referring to that developed with this thread:

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...gital-strategy

[davidbfpo]

Has Bill M. been busy? I ask as the linked article has:

Moore’s Law: An observation that the speed and capability of computers can be expected to double every two years, as a result of increases in the number and density of transistors a microchip can contain.

(Later) The price performance of Moore’s Law enabled the emergence of a sustainable technology enabled authoritarian state.

[flagg]

Has Bill M. been busy? I ask as the linked article has:

Moore’s Law was originated/coined in 1965 by Gordon Moore(co-founder of Intel).