this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1574 readers
57 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The protection of undersea internet cables is a matter of national security.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

US like always is missing the point. The real story should be that redundancy is key. Even with those cables cut, there was no noticeable interruption in internet services.

[–] Rooskie91 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but have you considered that redundancy costs money that could be going to shareholders?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago

Never crossed my mind. Time to start a new business venture, thanks for the idea.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you even read the headline? Redundancy isn't the issue, the Chinese is. If we can just make one super-American aluminum cable, it'll last forever!

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why would China cut there connection to the US? That wouldn't make sense.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

It says right there in the headline that their "proposals include restricting Chinese companies from building cable components." If I know anything about reading headlines and ignoring the content of the article, this means the Chinese that cables=bad. But if the cable is built in the US of A, then it'll be super high-quality. We could probably build it from fettuccini!

But on a more serious note, this just sounds like grandstanding. Most technology, even bespoke—especially bespoke—gets manufactured in multiple companies. I'm not sure it'll even be possible to preclude China from the process of making cables for us, nor do I fully understand why you'd want to. There are other ways to punish a country than hurting your own technology.

To answer your question: they'd cut it to cause harm and chaos here. But physically dragging an anchor over cables as they've been doing is different than building components. Even if they built faulty components, I'd imagine they'd fail a test before being sent to the bottom of the ocean.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Good. It shouldn't be so simple to completely isolate and cripple a country.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

They could also lay down more cables for redundancy. Expensive but it would prove much more safe. It would be best if they were owned by two separate companies using totally different stuff.

The good new right now is that China would lose more than the US would if a cable got cut.