Technology

A recent report issued by computer security firm Mandiant shined a bright light onto a dark truth we have known for years: The Chinese government is systematically and methodically stealing American intellectual property at a breathtaking pace and scope.
 
The Chinese are doing this to gain an artificial advantage in the global economy. Chinese Communist party leadership has learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union that the only way to compete with free, dynamic, innovative nations like ours is to have a strong economy of their own. The problem is that China decided to take a short cut. One manufacturer in the U.S., for example, spent $1 billion and ten years on research and development for a new product. In a matter of minutes, the Chinese had stolen the design and now can engineer and sell it in the global marketplace without having spent one day or one dollar on research and development. Pesticide formulas have been stolen, manufacturing blue prints, software, chemical formulas, you name it. The Chinese even attempted to steal the secret recipe for Coca-Cola. Extrapolate that out to the entire American economy and you have a major threat to our ability to compete in the world.

Immigration reform faces a variety of challenges as it moves through Washington’s political wickets, but none may be as seemingly daunting as the task the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will face when it will be required to rapidly accredit the estimated eleven million undocumented immigrants currently residing within the United States.

All webs, whether spun by spiders or by man, have holes that trap the unwary, and the World Wide Web is no exception. There are holes everywhere, and every one provides an open door for a hacker.
 
The cyberworld is a great equalizer in many respects, not the least of which is its risk for mischief. Wealth and privilege offer no shield against potential damage to finances, reputations, corporate intelligence and vital infrastructure. It’s open season whenever anyone goes online.

In case you've been in a cave for a while, there is a fair amount of (not unreasonable) anxiety these days about rules of the road for cyberspace. Controversial topics include: privacy for electronic records, location tagging of devices, tracking Internet history for online advertising, mining of "big data" for all sorts of business, government and research purposes, perpetuating "too much information" on social media, remote computing and storage in "the Cloud," transferring personal data across international borders, hacking for all sorts of nefarious purposes, denial of service attacks against major financial institutions, monitoring communications for law enforcement and national security, and commanding cybersecurity protections for critical networks and company secrets. And all of that before we even have ubiquitous deployment of powerful facial recognition technology, omnipresent domestic drones, pervasive online gambling, powerful computing eyewear, and of course the next new thing.

When Rush Limbaugh, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Tea Party Republicans worked in last year’s presidential election to exploit the federal Lifeline low-income telephone program leftist watchers accused them of being racist. Seasoned watchers on the “reasoned right” shook their heads, and this tired Tea Party tactic contributed to snatching defeat from the jaws of a Republican presidential victory.
 
Will Republicans ever learn? Apparently not.

Can our country be competitive without skilled technology workers?  Can we sustain our technical creativity without individuals who are trained in the technical areas? The reply to such questions is always a resounding "No!" And when we ask if all possible workers are included, the answer is also "No!"

The status of women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) is important for the economic, social, entrepreneurial and political advantage of the United States.

With sequestration now in effect, experts are debating the future of the Department of Defense (DoD). The agency has already committed to $487 billion in budget cuts over the next decade, but it also recognizes the need to modernize as it slims down. As the new secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel must address a critical issue for America’s defense: how to keep the department at the forefront of the information age. A smart first step would be bringing Silicon Valley to the Pentagon.



In the past few years, broadband providers have begun shifting toward tiered service plans (sometimes known as usage-based pricing) that offer customers a fixed amount of data each month for a fee. On average, less than 2 percent of users exceed the most commonly-used tier of 300 GB; nearly 80% of consumers never exceed even 50 GB per month.

Nevertheless, some critics such as Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation are concerned that this trend may bring higher prices and reduced service. Most recently, NAF analyst Benjamin Lennett asked whether tiered service plans are a plot by cable companies to eliminate Internet-based competitors such as Netflix, which alone generates one-third of all North American download traffic.

The Internet has given anyone with the power of an idea the opportunity to launch a small business that can reach customers from coast to coast – driving growth, creating jobs, and empowering small business owners. Consumers have reaped the benefits of greater choice, lower prices, and more convenience.
 
But where some see progress, tax collectors see opportunity.
 
Officials in cash-strapped states across the country are looking for new ways to plug budget holes – and they’re asking Washington for help. They see online businesses as an irresistible source of new tax revenue – and they want to cross state lines to get it.

As a conservative I know that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” As a former local elected official, I also know that tax revenues need to come from somewhere, and that they should be levied on as fair a basis as possible.

It’s a delicate balance, one that does not come easily. Government must be responsible in its spending and should not abuse its authority to effect change in the marketplace, whether through its taxing authority or its ability to impose regulations. There are times when new businesses or new technologies may be given a break until they are established, but those breaks should be temporary rather than permanent.