This is in reply to Dan Harris’ post on the dangers of not being careful with information when doing business abroad – China. Do The Walls Have Ears?. Mr. Harris makes his paranoia when going abroad to “China and many other countries,” and then goes on to illustrate why it is justified.
I am convinced about 99.9% of all emails go through. But the way I interpret that is that at least one email I send per day will not reach its destination. If I do not hear back from someone rather quickly, I just assume they did not get my email and so I send it again. In other words, I assume the worst.
I have a similar attitude regarding my privacy when in China and many other countries. I assume my hotel room is bugged and my internet is monitored. I assume the worst and I take every measure I can to be careful. I know people will (and have) laugh at my “paranoia” but I have plenty of stories to tell involving people who were not careful about their data.”
I agree that it is, indeed, justified, but I actually feel that he hasn’t taken his paranoia far enough. It is important to be careful with information everywhere and all the time – not just when doing business, or when doing business abroad. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I prefer that over the things that might happen if I was not.
The caution one exhibits in China, Korea, Russia, or any other country not waving an American or EU game should not be any different from what one does everywhere else.
Identity theft and surveillance is a reality no matter where you go: and identity theft is currently the fastest growing crime, in the developed world. There are certainly differences in the level of surveillance one can expect from nation to nation, but these are not as great as differences in perception.
China has the CCP, the PLA and it’s special units, America has the Patriot Act, the DHS, the FBI, CIA, and it’s special units, Europe has Interpol and its special units…depending on who you are and what national/ideological interests you represent, the level of paranoia you feel in each of these countries is sure to vary significantly. Perhaps, in the past, this sort of relative fear was justified since global affairs of policy and economy were much more fragmented. Today, countries’ interests have been blurred together by the whirlwind of a computer driven, hyperpaced, 24/7 economy. Paradoxically, in this environment, the perceived need for surveillance has increased because now even slight advantages in negotiations can lead to lucrative gains in the fast paced trading world. So it is no longer just enough to have selective information surveillance; it is important to have omnipresent information surveillance since one never knows what could be important.
Given that having as much information as possible is now more important to everyone, it is not enough to be vigilant with one’s information when traveling abroad to a region of the world that has traditionally been a rival of one’s home country. It is obvious, perhaps, but not enough.
Who is more likely to trap the fly with honey? Someone that the fly is already cautious of? Or someone that the fly is perfectly comfortable with?
China Healthcare Blog
China. The walls have ears there, and probably everywhere else.
I agree that it is, indeed, justified, but I actually feel that he hasn’t taken his paranoia far enough. It is important to be careful with information everywhere and all the time – not just when doing business, or when doing business abroad. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I prefer that over the things that might happen if I was not.
The caution one exhibits in China, Korea, Russia, or any other country not waving an American or EU game should not be any different from what one does everywhere else.
Identity theft and surveillance is a reality no matter where you go: and identity theft is currently the fastest growing crime, in the developed world. There are certainly differences in the level of surveillance one can expect from nation to nation, but these are not as great as differences in perception.
China has the CCP, the PLA and it’s special units, America has the Patriot Act, the DHS, the FBI, CIA, and it’s special units, Europe has Interpol and its special units…depending on who you are and what national/ideological interests you represent, the level of paranoia you feel in each of these countries is sure to vary significantly. Perhaps, in the past, this sort of relative fear was justified since global affairs of policy and economy were much more fragmented. Today, countries’ interests have been blurred together by the whirlwind of a computer driven, hyperpaced, 24/7 economy. Paradoxically, in this environment, the perceived need for surveillance has increased because now even slight advantages in negotiations can lead to lucrative gains in the fast paced trading world. So it is no longer just enough to have selective information surveillance; it is important to have omnipresent information surveillance since one never knows what could be important.
Given that having as much information as possible is now more important to everyone, it is not enough to be vigilant with one’s information when traveling abroad to a region of the world that has traditionally been a rival of one’s home country. It is obvious, perhaps, but not enough.
Who is more likely to trap the fly with honey? Someone that the fly is already cautious of? Or someone that the fly is perfectly comfortable with?