There is no evidence of "infiltration" here. The reality is that, in its march to privatize everything it can, the US government has incentivized a race to the bottom. If Chinese companies provide the cheapest services, then American data is going to end up on Chinese servers until the incentives are fixed.
Is this good? No. But it also isn't CCP infiltration; it's the logical consequence of trying to channel public money into private economies, public money that is meant to fund our most basic civic activity.
> it's the logical consequence of trying to channel public money into private economies, public money that is meant to fund our most basic civic activity.
Yes, and that logical consequence is being exploited by foreign governments. By "infiltrate" I mean "taking advantage of our shortsightedness," similar to how we ignorantly offshored pharmaceutical sourcing/production to China [1].
There's plenty [2] of loose threads that warrant my "only the paranoid survive" POV on stuff like this.
Hell, there's even a book that goes into detail about the strategy [3]:
> "If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it is at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” And this is the strategy set forth in Unrestricted Warfare: waging a war on an adversary with methods so covert at first and seemingly so benign that the party being attacked does not realize it’s being attacked." - Qiao Liang
This is quibbling, but I don’t think that’s “infiltration.” We don’t get to pawn out incompetencies off on other countries; they don’t owe us anything in particular.
More to the point: there’s no evidence that China actually did anything here, other than provide a service and get some overeager DA to interpret that in the worst possible light. Which, if you’re China, is a win-win: you didn’t have to do anything at all besides provide a quality product to get the Americans to doubt their election!
Not to be rude but this exact response is why this strategy has been and will continue to be successful.
Americans cannot believe that a foreign government who's fundamental values are counter to theirs would take advantage of their naivety for both financial and geopolitical gain.
I mean they say it overtly: make it subtle so they don't realize it's happening.
I use abductive reasoning to connect different things I see and form a preliminary conclusion/hypothesis based on that. I'm not starting a church or lighting candles.
I'd buy what you're saying if it was nearly anything but servers. It's still not proof, but either the DA is using the wrong word (quite plausible) or it's very fishy.
Because of various implantation details it's inconvenient and expensive to operate servers in China if you don't need to. Even the IoT crap I've bought to disassemble on AliExpress phoned home to us-east-1.
I never called it proof of anything. That was projected on to what I said. I made an assertion and then the predictable Baizuo twist and shout started.
To be fair, this is probably a guy going to jail because he used a text message sending API that used tencent cloud somewhere in their backend or something...
I wish that were true but considering his ties, expertise, and the general theme of his patents I'd say that's a naive interpretation. That said I certainly hope you're right and I only say "naive" to discourage people shrugging it off as a nothing burger.
I've presented multiple sources in this thread for why I make that claim. I don't lack integrity, I lack the typical social conditioning that makes people averse to discussing these sorts of things.
I'm willing and happy (and would prefer) to be completely wrong.
The infiltration related to this specific situations where the data for this company is stored on Chinese servers. That's what we are talking about.
Edit:Saying you are ok with being wrong has no bearing on your comments. It's an admirable attribute but so is telling the truth and not making accusations without evidence
I clarified my usage of the term "infiltration" in response elsewhere in this thread. It's very bizarre that you're harping on that term when, technically speaking, it's accurate (even if my use here is mildly hyperbolic):
> the action of entering or gaining access to an organization or place surreptitiously, especially in order to acquire secret information or cause damage.
Like I explained to you in another response, abductive reasoning makes fair game of the conclusion that, yeah, if election worker v̵o̵t̵e̵r̵ [1] information is stored on the servers of another country (and of all countries, China—not known for its VPS services), it's reasonable to conclude that there's something not right about that.
It might be inconvenient to recognize, but it's not like I'm spouting glue-huffer theories here. It's a finger tip away from smacking you in the face it's so obvious.
[1] Edit: I concede to themitigating that I am, in fact, guilty of the great crime of misattributing the type of information on the server. Disregard everything I say. I am dishonorable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VY_xxL2jL0&t=57s
You don't need to clarify infiltration you just haven't proven it.
"that, yeah, if voter information is stored on the servers of another country"
This was a company that stored HR information for election workers not voter information.
This is the manipulation I'm talking about it and why you have no integrity.
Edit: "...guilty of the great crime of misattributing the type of information " yes lying and it is a great crime depending on what you lie about and why. Lies have cost human lives and started wars and sarcastic apology is the best response you could come up with?
> District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China.
It's shocking how effective the CCP has been at infiltrating Western governments and institutions.
My favorite turn to date has to be Charles Lieber from Harvard [1]. He's got some fun patents [2] floating around.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-profes...
[2] https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2015199784A2/en