Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Has modern technology put James Bond out of business?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Has modern technology put James Bond out of business?

    1. There is a lot of American bXXXXXXt about alleged cybersecurity risks from the use of Chinese telecom equipment, particularly those of Huawei Technologies. The US claimed it received internal Huawei documentation from former Huawei employees showing that Huawei provides special network services to an entity the employees believe to be an elite cyber-warfare unit within the People’s Liberation Army.

    Taking advantage of its masterminded detention of the Huawei CFO in Canada, the US steps up pressure on all countries to strangle Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of business. Actually, those countries are not naive or foolish enough to believe the US allegations, but they are forced to yield to US pressure under threats of sanctions and tariffs.

    The US and Russia (the ruling state of the defunct Soviet Union) were grandmaster players in the spy game during the Soviet era. How can the US lose to a rookie like China in the spy game? Has modern technology put James Bond and other spies out of business?

    2. As shown in the reasons below, the services of James and other spies are more important than ever. In fact, modern technology can't even put "The Art of War" of Sunzi (roughly 5th century BC) out of print or into the dustbin of history. It is still hailed today as a must reading in important military institutions of the world.

    (a) Sunzi listed five effective ways of intelligence and espionage in chapter 13 of his book. Of course, there was no modern technology such as the Internet in the time of Sunzi, but that does not diminish the importance of his military treatise today.

    The Department of the Army in the United States, through its Command and General Staff College, lists "The Art of War" as one example of a book that may be kept at a military unit's library. The book is listed on the Marine Corps Professional Reading Program (formerly known as the Commandant's Reading List). It is recommended reading for all United States Military Intelligence personnel.

    According to some authors, the strategy of deception from "The Art of War" was studied and widely used by the KGB: "I will force the enemy to take our strength for weakness, and our weakness for strength, and thus will turn his strength into weakness". The book is widely cited by KGB officers in charge of disinformation operations in Vladimir Volkoff's novel Le Montage.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

    (b) If modern technology such as hacking and satellite surveillance is efficient for intelligence gathering and espionage, there is no need for the US to repeatedly call for more transparency from China on its military spending. The US can simply use the iPhone and other US electronic equipment to get all the required information from China.

    (c) The US military had refrained from any contact with its Chinese counterpart until the successful sea trials of the first Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. After a US request, former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel toured China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, at Yuchi naval base in April 2014. The tour which lasted about two hours was, of course, more efficient than thousands of hacking or alleged Huawei spying. Nothing was more valuable to US intelligence gathering and espionage than giving its defence chief a chance to see and touch with his own eyes and hands in the US so-called "military cooperation" with China.

    (d) In October 21, 2015, China hosted a visit to its sole aircraft carrier by senior US Navy officers. The delegation of 27 commanders and captains boarded the Liaoning and held discussions on "exercise management, personnel training, medical protection and strategies in carrier development".
    Discussions? What discussions? Certainly not telling or listening to fairy tales? Those discussions are reminiscent of the detailed questions about the robot and information about proprietary technology repeatedly asked by Huawei employees, as alleged by T-Mobile in a lawsuit.

    It is interesting to note that the two eyes and two hands of the US defence chief were insufficient to do a good job that required 27 more pairs of eyes and hands.

    (e) The visit to the aircraft carrier was followed by a visit to the Chinese navy's submarine academy, where further dialogues were held. Again what dialogues? The senior US Navy officers definitely would not ask detailed questions about the weather and the deep blue sea. And lastly, what did they carry out of those visits?

    (f) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday (18 January) said President Trump revealed that she and other lawmakers would be making a trip to Afghanistan on a commercial flight, a revelation that made it too dangerous to go forward with the trip. Certainly no outsiders, not even the alleged "almighty" Huawei, could know the secret before its leakage by Donald Trump. What a joke!

    (g) The 2011 Wolf Amendment, motivated by security concerns, bans NASA scientists from working with Chinese citizens affiliated with a Chinese state enterprise or entity. The US has put technological obstacles to China's lunar exploration program and refused to issue visas to Chinese experts.

    Not until China showed tremendous advance in its moon mission did the US show any interest in "space collaboration" with China. At an astronautical conference in Germany last year, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said he talked to his Chinese counterpart about expanding cooperation. It was reported on Monday (14 January) that China has shared data with NASA on its recent mission to land a Chinese spacecraft on the far side of the moon.

    If the so-called "space collaboration" with NASA were to go ahead, what's more valuable to US intelligence gathering and espionage than having its astronauts and equipment on board a Chinese spacecraft to monitor the Chinese space program?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.7a9206753558

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...c-moon-landing

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-mili...arine-academy/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26917693

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rrier_Liaoning

    https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/n...wei-equipment/

    https://dmlnews.com/breaking-pelosi-...-danger-video/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,847
    Thanks
    1,776
    Thanked 1,392 Times in 1,124 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    No

    modern technology hasn't.

    Marvel and DC Comics might
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by johnofgwent View Post
    No

    modern technology hasn't.

    Marvel and DC Comics might
    Well said. How about the Bond films?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    A Correction Facility
    Posts
    636
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts
    Bond was a middle-aged womaniser and you can't have that sort of thing any more. It isn't PeeCee, so they can either make it PeeCee and totally ruin it like they have done to everything else they've touched of late, or leave it alone to remind us of how cool people once were.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,152
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 86 Times in 76 Posts
    The Chinese telecoms equipment is bought because it is cheap and it works. Do you fancy paying 5-10 times the price for the name?

    The gap is getting wider where one looks at what the Chinese sell and the price, and compares it to the American stuff. Perhaps if you want something hyper-specialist then the Americans might have the edge. I'm not saying al their technology is duff, but there are a lot of pis-takers. You know them by the amount of awards and badges they have. There was an American CD player manufacturer for example, and they did a high-end unit costing thousands and it won an award for the quality of the sound. They also did a cheap entry-level machine for the mass market which was not awarded the badge. The public were horrified when they learnt the innards of the unit were the same thing!

    So what I think is going on here is protectionism. All that internet gear is being supplied more and more by the Far East now. They are good at that sort of thing. Firms like IBM used to make a killing from the corporate computer market and the punter got stuffed. OK so they say, use this and it isn't secure. Frighten the customer into buying your product. Only idiots fall for it.
    Judged by the content of their character

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,847
    Thanks
    1,776
    Thanked 1,392 Times in 1,124 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebirth View Post
    Bond was a middle-aged womaniser and you can't have that sort of thing any more. It isn't PeeCee, so they can either make it PeeCee and totally ruin it like they have done to everything else they've touched of late, or leave it alone to remind us of how cool people once were.
    And besides which, the "real" bond(s) were almost certainly not ladies' men.

    The list that sticks in my mind of those "batting for Britain and Russia at the same time" or at least in the same test series seem exclusively composed of people well versed in batting for the other side, or bith, in other ways too...

    i just cant see Cubby making millions from films depicting THAT in the 60s and 70s...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

Similar Threads

  1. Warning over UK 'visitor bond' plan
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25-06-2013, 02:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •