I found this paper to be less than objective in its introduction and commentary. Statements were made that had nothing to do with the research itself, and therefore did not relate to supporting data and were superfluous. I really don’t like reading papers like this because my initial reaction is always “why do they say this, and who reviewed the paper that allowed them to pass?”
As technologists we have always had a responsibility beyond just doing the job. We don’t all see it that way I know, but for example we choose to use encryption for reasons that should not even be up for discussion. We have platforms and services that can be used to provide some direction to society, when we as fellow human beings see it going awry. Sure there are those who will overstep the mark, but you cannot hide anymore and this is the reality that any would be fascist has to face.
"Can a free market naturally produce a safety net?"
When Margaret Thatcher was asked before she succumbed to dementia if she would do anything differently, she replied that she had believed, that making people rich would mean that they would help the poor, but now she realised that they don't.
Thanks for the downvote. The inverted commas mean that I don't actually agree with this, just as the original poster probably does not count themselves in the "we".
I guess any customer using US Equipment in any part of the world is also accessible, even without a local law supporting it?
Interestingly I managed to discover a Huawei trojan that installed itself without me granting permission via a hotel router. It wasn't particularly well built back in the day which made it easy-ish to identify.
Makes me wonder where China is going with all the deals Huawei is making with Govts across the world too.
