Comment by catwell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by catwell | Hacker News Reader

I am looking at this from Europe, and when I read things like this I feel like the US have not realized that their standing on the international scene has changed in the last 30 years.

Most of the research and advances in the technologies listed has not been made in the US, and even when it has it often hasn't been mostly by US nationals.

You were the country that defined globalization, and now you refuse to see the state of the world and actively harm yourselves with protectionist decisions like this. You have already lost business with regulations like Cloud Act, and now China is quickly eating your share of the pie.

You still have a major influence in the West because of two things: capital, and the historical fact that the large market leaders in tech which control distribution (Google, Apple, Microsoft) are American. Would you bet this will still be the case 20 years from now? I wouldn't if I were you.

I know a lot of the Americans here on HN probably do not agree with a lot of what their current government does, but still. Export controls don't work except to cut yourselves out of entire markets abroad and foster the adoption of competitors to your domestic companies. I don't understand how this is a viable long-term strategy.

The article is basically asking the public for comments which is the correct approach. The categories will not be banned completely they are just listing technologies they want to regulate or in the worst case ban for export.

This is no different form the EU’s dual use export restrictions. Here’s on example from Cisco for a couple products that have regulations on crypto. They even list each countries export office and associated license information.[1]

[1]https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/global-export-trad...

You are right, of course. Asking for comments is fine.

I guess the combination of looking at the (very broad) contents of the list, past issues with crypto export and knowing Trump is in the White House made me overreact...

I'm also looking at this from a EU perspective and don't really care. If the USA wants to shoot itself in the head why should I care? If anything it might mean more tech work for European techies like myself.

> If the USA wants to shoot itself in the head why should I care?

Like it or not US forces are major part of military strenght of NATO and it's not so much viable without it. So strong US economy (needed to fuel the army) is in our interest as well.

US forces are also a major contributor to instability in the middle-east (and the world) that have had negative consequences for much of Europe, Africa and South America.

The US os a rogue state by its own definition of the word.

Yes, because without US as strong opposition, Russia would definitely not sweep over Europe egain.

I fail to see how this is suicide. It's not export restrictions for the sake of market boosting or market isolation, it's a request for information about emerging tech.

Lots of people here seem to believe that the current US administration only came to power thanks to Russian help. In that context, it's certainly a viable long-term strategy for increasing Russia's relative standing in the world.

That belief has not been supported by facts, as the RM report stated, (obstruction is still in question, but collusion hasn't been proven). In facts there's more evidence of "collusion" with KSA and Israel, but because both parties have interest in protecting these, no discussion on that. In fact the Democratic leaders endorse moves by this administration that pander to Israeli right-wing.

It exposes this whole thing as a mask to avoid reflecting on what actually went wrong in 2016 and it certainly doesn't hurt that Cold War probing as Russia == evil is still there and honestly, as an outside observer, quite bigoted.

Now I am not saying there wasn't any 'meddling' by Russia, just that if 'meddling' is the concern, Russia was nowhere near the biggest player.

Speaking of meddling, the Democrats also largely endorse meddling in Venezuela, which is another major sign of this being a sham.

This is just plain silly. Every country with a decent R&D program producing weaponizeable tech will have a gov panel interested in understanding whats being developed and what can be exported to whom without violating international arms treaties.

Isn't the silly thing saying the encryption is weaponizable tech when it's not. It's just frustrating government spying abilities and so is now labelled as weaponized tech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com