China's Conquest of Internet, ICANN + Quantum Encryption

ICANN's power is mainly legal, and a contract with ICANN could trigger a violent dispute over international law.

Bluntly stated: giving away ICANN could ultimately trigger a cyber war or worse.

When you face a super power like the USA it helps to have raw power. China probably assumes it will not come to that, but just like nuclear deterence, they need the war-making capability.

And the Chinese already enjoy raw power. Their encryption is superior, their nuclear capability suffices, and they are now experienced at cyber warfare.

Compare that to the US -- NSA recently got hacked. That was supposed to be the best encrypted, best protected agency in our nation. Imagine if all of our satellites got simultaneously hacked. We would be blind and appear weak in the eyes of the world.

The reason China is building a compound to welcome ICANN is international legitimacy. Other tyrants seeking to censor online speech can seek a shiny new contract with Obama's Free Range ICANN.

Bluntly stated: ICANN helps China build a large alliance to alienate the USA if it comes to a full-scale 'cyber-war'.

It's been widely reported that China is already waging a cyber-war. But in my opinion those are just skirmishes, raids to test their capability and possibly pick up more tech, intel to blackmail, etc.

Back in 2014, the UK Telegraph reported that China developed 'quantum encryption'. It's a pioneering concept said to be impenetrable to hackers.

China’s quantum network could soon span two continents, thanks to a satellite launched earlier today ... the Quantum Science Satellite is designed to distribute quantum-encrypted keys between relay stations in China and Europe. When working as planned, the result could enable unprecedented levels of security between parties on different continents. [snip]

That was written in August 15 -- mid-August of this year, the same time that Strickling boasted of his criminal transition plan of ICANN.

... China is poised to launch a project that may provide the path to an uncrackable communications system, by turning messages quantum and taking them into space. The new Quantum Space Satellite (QUESS) program is no mere science experiment. China is already becoming a world leader in quantum communications technology ... a strategic asset for Chinese power worldwide.

Quantum entanglement is the act of fusing two or more particles into complementary “quantum states.” In such states, no particle can be independently described, instead the particles exist in a hazy shared quantum state that “collapses” when observed. Quantum encryption thus takes advantage of this feature, using it to detect would-be eavesdroppers, whose presence causes quantum states to collapse and reveal their spying to legitimate parties. Additionally, the complexity of quantum mechanics makes it virtually impossible to reverse engineer the quantum key generated through quantum entanglement.

I am left to believe that it's unlikely that the USA currently stands a chance against China in a cyber-war until we work out better encryption ourselves, and we would have to develop it WHILE sustaining cyber-bombardment. We would need our developers to get off the internet completely, and that would slow down their progress.

The only reason why China doesn't dominate the internet yet is probably because they want us to keep importing their goods.

China and Russia are preparing to attack and disrupt critical U.S. military and intelligence satellites in a future conflict with crippling space missile, maneuvering satellite, and laser attacks, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday. [snip]

U.S. Global Positioning System satellites remain vulnerable to attack or jamming.

So yes, our targeting systems would be blinded. That in itself would would be decisive in cyber-warfare.

But destruction of GPS satellites is also a 'raw force' threat to our communications satellites as well. While our GPS is blinded, they can pick off our com-sats one-by-one. No more cell phones, no more wireless internet -- just landlines. We would be back in the '70s while China becomes the world's hub of online communications.

I doubt that China wants to destroy our economy let alone 'nuke' our cities. However, they would love to prove their super power status and be viewed as the world's new technological leader. And if they can't beat us via encryption, they can wipe out our communications satellites directly, one at a time, until we kowtow to their 'reasonable' demands.

In fact, it might be prudent to ask President Obama if it is already too late to oppose China's dominance. Behind closed doors he might be feeling 'blackmail pressure' to hand over ICANN to them as a gesture of surrender.

If the US loses prestige regarding ICANN, it is possible that talent will 'drain' into China rather than the US. We currently draw in so much talent from the world that some of us feel contempt toward 'foreign geeks', but mark my words -- we benefited greatly from the 'foreign geeks' who fled from Nazi Germany into the US. And our weakness [loss of prestige] could cause us to lose that edge.

In such a climate, how could we ever hope to improve our encryption and win a prolonged cyber-war?

The most glaring reason to not trust Obama is that his administration refuses to even contemplate the dangers in public.

The Obama administration claims that he is 'deregulating' the internet with a 'Free Range ICANN'.

First off, ICANN is assisting China in suppression of free speech. That's a good indicator of what a 'Free Range ICANN' looks like.

Secondly, the internet is the USA's most deregulated industry, and that all foreign governments want to do is increase its regulation.

A man who ought to know something about how foreign governments tick is John Bolton: “But the fact is, under American control, it’s had remarkable growth. It’s been kept free. It’s been able to withstand a lot of pressure to try and set rules that favor one side or another. And in an international environment, I can tell you from my own experience, when you get all kinds of governments from all over the world setting standards and making decisions, it will be far less free than it is now ... "

Bolton called the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country.”

The Obama administration also claims that renewing the contract would be a 'gift to Russia'.

First off, I'm not yet aware of Russia building any facilities for ICANN's relocation. China is.

Secondly, many in Obama's adminstration are or were close to the Clinton family. And it is well-documented that the Clinton administration sold US technology to China in exchange for illegal campaign funding. That includes satellite technology and encryption technology as well -- a corrupt gift from the Clintons.

Fourthly, Obama has been begging China to buy bonds throughout his administration. He is beholden to them and thus this administration should recuse itself from this debate for that reason alone.

Military intel is nothing like modern media. Your enemy doesn't 'spell out' his plans -- he simply attacks. And surprise preemption has been the trend in the history of modern warfare. So you don't have the luxury of being certain about 'friend or foe' until it is too late.

Renewing ICANN's IANA functions contract may help unravel China's apparent designs. While that could make us appear to be 'control freaks' in the world's eyes, we need a competent Executive Branch to navigate this clear and present danger.

More importantly, trusting the Clintons with our military and communications technology another time around would only make the problem worse. They gave massive amounts of it away before and would most likely do it again.

I'm putting libertarians on notice -- if you have any love for internet freedom of speech and online intellectual property rights, your choice is clear: Hillary Clinton must lose this election unless you think that high-tech drone development will fail to suppress China's people even more than they already are. The helplessness of China's people is getting worse every year. The government's technology outstrips human iniative.

It's true that ICANN could fracture. It's true that China's cyber-war might escalate regardless. But we are talking about the USA's Number 1 exporter. China might prefer a seamless transition -- a clean contract with the official ICANN organization.

We might owe China a lot of bond debt, but we do not owe them our nation's soul.

Hard Evidence: ICANN & China Allied to Re-Centralize Internet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3472563/posts

ICANN, a Pack of Liars
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3469994/posts

John Bolton on Obama’s Internet Handover: ‘Within Ten Years, the Internet as We Know It Will End’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3472489/posts

ICANN’s Secret Plot: rigged oversight, designs on .mil, $2.5 mil in lobbying
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3471830/posts

~~~~~~~~

China, Russia Planning Space Attacks on U.S. Satellites

Critical space infrastructure faces crippling missile strikes, small satellites, lasers

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-russia-planning-space-attacks-on-u-s-satellites/

BY: Bill Gertz
March 16, 2016 5:00 am

~~~~~~~~~

Cyber Attack On Satellite Could Be Act Of War: HPSCI Ranking
By Colin Clark on June 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/cyber-attack-on-satellite-could-be-act-of-war-hpsci-ranking/

CAPITOL HILL: In a rare public event, the No. 2 member of the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee (HPSCI), Rep. Adam, said a cyber attack on a US satellite could be considered an act of war.

~~~~~~~~~~~

How Bill Clinton Paved the Way for Internet Surrender

Note that communications satellites and encryption are key to dominating the internet via ‘raw power’.

[Back during President Clinton’s time — 1998 hearing]

U.S. Satellite Technology Transfers To China: What’s At Issue, Questions & Answers
http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=420&rid=1

Henry Sokolski’s testimony presented before a joint hering on the House International Relations Committee and the House National Security Committee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Easy To Explain — WHY ICANN is dangerous
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3472522/posts

Obama’s key internet giveaway advocate can’t give a straight answer on free speech concerns
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3472675/posts

[This was in a 1998 hearing regarding Bill Clinton’s Chinagate Scandal]

U.S. Satellite Technology Transfers To China: What’s At Issue, Questions & Answers
http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=420&rid=1

Henry Sokolski’s testimony presented before a joint hering on the House International Relations Committee and the House National Security Committee.

Jun 17, 1998
AUTHOR: NPEC executive director Henry Sokolski
US Satellite Technology Transfers to China (PDF) 22.27 KB

U.S. Satellite Technology Transfers To China:
What’s At Issue, Questions and Answers

Q. In allowing U.S. satellite technology transfers to China, isn’t the Clinton Administration simply doing what the Bush Adminstration did before it?

A. No, there are differences. Although Clinton and Bush both waived Tainamen Square sanctions to allow U.S. satellite technology transfers to China, the Clinton administration went much further in loosening controls over them by moving virtually all commercial satellite technology from State to Commerce Department controls. This shift has eliminated systematic government monitoring of prelaunch conversations between U.S. contractors and Chinese space firms and, according to the General Accounting Office, marginalized the previously important licensing input of the Defense Department.

Q. But isn’t the most important point that Reagan and Bush started this commerce?

A. It’s hard to see how. Either the transfer of critically important military technology is an inevitable part of launching U.S.-made satellites or it’s not. If it is, then persisting in the business (with 14 launches) is just as blameworthy as starting it (with 4). Indeed, it could even be worse if you began such commerce in the vain hope that you could control its diversion but persisted in transferring satellites knowing that it couldn’t. On the other hand, if you believe U.S. controls can prevent the Chinese military from benefiting from such trade, then, not who started such commerce, but who has allowed what to be transferred are the critical issues.

Q. OK. But if China could hit Los Angeles with a nuclear warhead before it launched its first U.S.-made satellite,what more of military significance could it gain for its missile forces from U.S. satellite makers?

A: Plenty. China has repeatedly objected to U.S. development of missile defenses that could neutralize China’s missile forces. In this regard, China’s mastering of how to place single and multiple satellites in exact locations in space (with precision satellite kick motors and multiple satellite dispensers) is directly applicable to its current efforts to develop missiles with post boost vehicles (PBVs) and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle systems (MIRVs) designed to overwhelm or evade such defenses. Its latest solid-rocket missile projects — the DF-31, DF-41, and J1-2 — in fact, are all believed to be perfecting such systems. Also, China is keenly interested in making their theater missiles accurate enough to destroy targets (e.g., in Taiwan) without having to use chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. Acquiring such accuracy is intrinsic with placing sophisticated satellites precisely on station — something China has had a 100% success rate with since the Loral and Hughes failures of l996.

Q. Putting missile improvements aside, though, isn’t it clear that keeping U.S.-made satellites from prying Chinese eyes has effectively kept the Chinese military from exploiting such commerce for its own satellite needs?

A. Not really. Increasingly, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is using U.S.-made satellites to transmit military encrypted message traffic. China has especially relied upon U.S.-made satellites over which it has operational control — e.g., the APTStar and Chinastar satellite series. China is also trying to develop advanced communications satellites of its own with Western help (a project Hughes wanted permission to work on before the recent Loral-Hughes flap). This, in the final analysis, however, is pointless unless China develops rocket systems that are reliable, gentle, and precise enough to place such satellites safely on station. U.S. satellite launch revenues to China (approximately $500 million since l990), launch experience with advanced U.S.-made satellites (nearly half of China’s last 30 launches), and transfer of associated technology have all served this purpose.

Q. But doesn’t Chinese use of U.S.-made satellites make it easier for our intelligence agencies to intercept whatever encrypted messages the Chinese military might transmit?

A. Not enough to justify U.S. satellite transfers. Indeed, supplying the PLA with satellite communications is hardly the preferred way for the U.S. to intercept China’s message traffic since it enables China to use a variety of antenna to transmit an increasing volume of encrypted messages at a lower cost. To the extent Chinese encryption may be strong and the satellite antenna used are narrow in beam width, our intelligence agencies’ task of intercepting Chinese communications will become more, not less difficult with increased PLA use of our satellites.

Q. At the end of the day, though, don’t U.S. satellite makers have to use Chinese launchers to stay competitive since Chinese launchers are so much cheaper than alternative launch services?

A. Hardly. Even by the U.S. satellite industry’s own calculations, Chinese launch services save them only 10 to 15 percent over alternative providers and this advantage is expected to evaporate over the next 36 to 48 months when newer American., Russian, and Ukrainian alternative launch services come on line. What makes U.S. satellite makers competitive, moreover, is not lower cost launchers, but higher quality satellites: These frequently cost one or two times more than the launch and produce even more in revenues over their lifetime.

Q. But if the U.S. forgoes satellite business with China,won’t this merely open the Chinese satellite market to America’s competitors?

A. None that we know of. Over 75 percent of the world’s commercial satellites, in fact, are either made in the U.S. or require U.S. permission to be launched because they contain key U.S. components. Virtually all the remaining commercial satellites come from member nations of the European Space Agency (ESA), who are inclined to launch their satellites on ESA launchers. As for making satellites in China, this market is already saturated: Dailmer-Benz is already working with the Chinese military to develop an advanced communications satellite but so far the system (after two launchings) has yet to work.

Q. If there is a technology transfer problem, isn’t putting all commercial satellites back under State controls the preferred fix?

A. Not necessarily. If State controls are not enforced with proper monitoring or if compliance concerns are not taken up by senior political officials and the contractors challenged to address possible control infractions (two complaints some government monitors had from l993 through l995), shifting back to State controls will do little good. Indeed, merely shifting controls back to State might only give use a dangerous, false sense of security. If the customer (e.g., the PLA) is intent on diverting technology, even the best controls cannot prevent it. Here, barring satellite technology transfers or, at least, transfers of the most advanced satellite types may be appropriate.

Q. What, then, should Congress do?

A. Keep things from getting worse until it gets all the answers. The House and Senate should insist that no further satellite transfers be allowed until its investigations and deliberations over this matter are complete. There simply is no substitute for determining what, if anything, of military significance was transferred to China and whether or not such transfers could have been prevented by tighter controls. If nothing was transferred, then, all’s well. If something was transferred, then, Congress must determine what it was, what else of value might be at risk, and whether or not these risks can be eliminated by tighter export controls or if barring future transfers is required.

Q. How should Congress go about doing this?

A. Stop pointing fingers or proposing easy solutions and get to work. It would be useful to depose all of the current and previous officials tasked to monitor this commerce along with their private corporate counter parts. It may be necessary to grant the later immunity. In no case, however, should Congress be reassuring the Executive Branch or private industry now that politically easy solutions — such as merely moving commercial satellites back to State controls — are the agreed way out. Indeed, too much partisan political capital has already been expended on this controversy for Congress to do anything less than a substantive oversight effort unprejudiced by preconceived solutions. Certainly, if Congress fails to do this, the credibility of both parties — Democratic and Republican — will suffer along with pubic regard for Congress and, more important, for the rule of law and our nation’s security.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.