Recent news of corporate espionage from China highlights the current administration’s focus on America’s relationship with the Eastern nation — but is substantive change possible?
Amazon’s denials of allegedly compromised security highlights the Trump administration’s increasingly hardline stance on China over the last two years. Tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods have escalated into a trade war between China and America (regardless of what the White House calls it). The reason cited? National security.
President Trump has even recently claimed Chinese interference in the midterm elections. “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade,” he said. “We are winning on trade. We are winning at every level.”
Yet despite the President championing his tough policies against China, cybersecurity experts say that Chinese cyber-attacks on American interest are higher than ever.
Crowdstrike, a global cybersecurity firm, ranks China as the current number one state sponsor of cybercrime, ahead of Russia, Iran, and North Korea respectively.
While the Trump administration is half right (Chinese spies are a real threat to American business), comparing China’s cyber attacks to Russia’s is ill-informed. While Russian hackers by all accounts are attempting to destabilize American socio-political norms, China’s hacking attempts are both more subtle and more economic-focused. Chinese hackers commit corporate espionage, stealing companies’ intellectual property and trade secrets.
It’s the difference between cyber-terrorism and cyber-intellectual-property-rights-infringement. Criminal apples compared to economic oranges.
Take the case of American Superconductor (AMSC), a Massachusetts-based energy technology company. After creating proprietary power management software for wind turbines, AMSC began a partnership with Sinovel, the largest Chinese wind turbine manufacturer. This partnership turned out to be a ruse on Sinovel’s part. Through corporate espionage, Sinovel created their own wind turbines with stolen AMSC software. This loss of revenue cost AMSC an estimated billion dollars in market value, forcing the company to lay off two-thirds of its workforce — roughly 600 of 900 employees.
But in the cases of both AMSC and Amazon (whose tech was allegedly used to spy on American citizens and government operations), it was American companies who sought out the Chinese manufacturers first. Trump’s tariffs make doing business with China more difficult, yet companies are continuing to go to China for their manufacturing needs regardless. China has a manufacturing workforce of about 80 million people, roughly double the population of California. In 2011, China manufactured 90 percent of the global PC market.
Take the iPhone, for instance. The Chinese factories that assemble the iPhone are massive. Just one can employ up to 350,000 people and produce about half a million iPhones a day (that’s 350 iPhones per minute). These kind of manufacturing statistics just aren’t realistically possible anywhere else, yet they’re the statistics modern international companies demand.
Trump is championed by his base as a businessman. Placing hard sanctions against a global manufacturing hub like China risks his base turning on him. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose department would implement the sanctions, has already opposed any further sanctions against China going forward.Any American company going into business with China for their manufacturing needs to know the risks involved.Click To Tweet
Yet somehow despite these risks, American companies can’t seem to resist the siren song of cheap manufacturing costs. Until another manufacturing powerhouse nation can grow to compete with China (or until short-term profit is outweighed by long-term security) American business interests will most likely continue to be stymied by Chinese cyber-theft for the foreseeable future.
You should apply to be on a board – why and how
(BUSINESS NEWS) What do you need to think about and explore if you want to apply for a Board of Directors? Here’s a quick rundown of what, why, and when.
What does a Board of Directors do? Investopedia explains “A board of directors (B of D) is an elected group of individuals that represent shareholders. The board is a governing body that typically meets at regular intervals to set policies for corporate management and oversight. Every public company must have a board of directors. Some private and nonprofit organizations also have a board of directors.”
It is time to have a diverse representation of thoughts, values and insights from intelligently minded people that can give you the intel you need to move forward – as they don’t have quite the same vested interests as you.
We have become the nation that works like a machine. Day in and day out we are consumed by our work (and have easy access to it with our smartphones). We do volunteer and participate in extra-curricular activities, but it’s possible that many of us have never understood or considered joining a Board of Directors. There’s a new wave of Gen Xers and Millennials that have plenty of years of life and work experience + insights that this might be the time to resurrect (or invigorate) interest.
Harvard Business Review shared a great article about identifying the FIVE key areas you would want to consider growing your knowledge if you want to join a board:
1. Financial – You need to be able to speak in numbers.
2. Strategic – You want to be able to speak to how to be strategic even if you know the numbers.
3. Relational – This is where communication is key – understanding what you want to share with others and what they are sharing with you. This is very different than being on the Operational side of things.
4. Role – You must be able to be clear and add value in your time allotted – and know where you especially add value from your skills, experiences and strengths.
5. Cultural – You must contribute the feeling that Executives can come forward to seek advice even if things aren’t going well and create that culture of collaboration.
As Charlotte Valeur, a Danish-born former investment banker who has chaired three international companies and now leads the UK’s Institute of Directors, says, “We need to help new participants from under-represented groups to develop the confidence of working on boards and to come to know that” – while boardroom capital does take effort to build – “this is not rocket science.”
NOW! The time is now for all of us to get involved in helping to create a brighter future for organizations and businesses that we care about (including if they are our own business – you may want to create a Board of Directors).
The Harvard Business Review gave great explanations of the need to diversify those that have been on the Boards to continue to strive to better represent our population as a whole. Are you ready to take on this challenge? We need you.
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
(BUSINESS NEWS) A job interview should be a place to ask about qualifications but sometimes things can go south – here’s how to escape when they do.
“So, why did you move from Utah to Austin?” the interviewer asked over the phone.
The question felt a little out of place in the job interview, but I gave my standard answer about wanting a fresh scene. I’d just graduated college and was looking to break into the Austin market. But the interviewer wasn’t done.
“But why Austin?” he insisted, “There can’t be that many Mormons here.”
My stomach curled. This was a job interview – I’d expected to discuss my qualifications for the position and express my interest in the company. Instead, I began to answer more and more invasive questions about my personal life and religion. The whole ordeal left me very uncomfortable, but because I was young and desperate, I put up with it. In fact, I even went back for a second interview!
At the time, I thought I had to put up with that sort of treatment. Only recently have I realized that the interview was extremely unprofessional and it wasn’t something I should have felt obligated to endure.
And I’m not the only one with a bad interview story. Slate ran an article sharing others’ terrible experiences, which ranged from having their purse inspected to being trapped in a 45 minute presentation! No doubt, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mistreatment by potential employers.
So, why do we put up with it?
Well, sometimes people just don’t know better. Maybe, like I was, they’re young or inexperienced. In these cases, these sorts of situations seem like they could just be the norm. There’s also the obvious power dynamic: you might need a job, but the potential employers probably don’t need you.
While there might be times you have to grit your teeth and bear it, it’s also worth remembering that a bad interview scenario often means bad working conditions later on down the line. After all, if your employers don’t respect you during the interview stage, it’s likely the disrespect will continue when you’re hired.
Once you’ve identified an interview is bad news, though, how do you walk out? Politely. As tempting as it is to make a scene, you probably don’t want to go burning bridges. Instead, excuse yourself by thanking your interviewers, wishing them well and asserting that you have realized the business wouldn’t be a good fit.
Your time, as well as your comfort, are important! If your gut is telling you something is wrong, it probably is. It isn’t easy, but if a job interview is crossing the line, you’re well within your rights to leave. Better to cut your losses early.
Australia vs Facebook: A conflict of news distribution
(BUSINESS NEWS) Following a contentious battle for news aggregation, Australia works to find agreement with Facebook.
Australia has been locked in a legal war against technology giants Google and Facebook with regard to how news content can be consumed by either entity’s platforms.
At its core, the law states that news content being posted on social media is – in effect – stealing away the ability for news outlets to monetize their delivery and aggregate systems. A news organization may see their content shared on Facebook, which means users no longer have to visit their site to access that information. This harms the ability for news production companies – especially smaller ones – from being able to maintain revenue and profit, while also giving power to corporations such as Facebook by allowing them to capitalize on their substantial infrastructure.
This is a complex subject that can be viewed from a number of angles, but it essentially asks the question of who should be in control of information on a potentially global scale, and how the ability to share such data should be handled when it passes through a variety of mediums and avenues. Put shortly: Australia thinks royalties should be paid to those who supply the news.
Australia has maintained that under the proposed laws, corporations must reach content distribution deals in order to allow news to be spread through – as one example – posts on Facebook. In retaliation, Facebook completely removed the ability for users to post news articles and stories. This in turn led to a proliferation of false and misleading information to fill the void, magnifying the considerable confusion that Australian citizens were confronted with once the change had been made.
“In just a few days, we saw the damage that taking news out can cause,” said Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at the Stony Brook School of Communication and Journalism. “Misinformation and disinformation, already a problem on the platform, rushed to fill the vacuum.”
Facebook’s stance is that it provides value to the publishers because shared news content will drive users to their sites, thereby allowing them to provide advertising and thus leading to revenue.
Australia has been working on this bill since last year, and has said that it is meant to equalize the potential imbalance of content and who can display and benefit from it. This is meant to try and create conditions between publishers and the large technology platforms so that there is a clearer understanding of how payment should be done in exchange for news and information.
Google was initially defiant (threatening to go as far as to shut off their service entirely), but began to make deals recently in order to restore its own access. Facebook has been the strongest holdout, and has shown that it can leverage its considerable audience and reach to force a more amenable deal. Australia has since provided some amendments to give Facebook time to seek similar deals obtained by Google.
One large portion of the law is that Australia is reserving the right to allow final arbitration, which it says would allow a mediator to set prices if no deal could be reached. This might be considered the strongest piece of the law, as it means that Facebook cannot freely exercise its considerable weight with impunity. Facebook’s position is that this allows government interference between private companies.
In the last week – with the new agreements on the table – it’s difficult to say who blinked first. There is also the question of how this might have a ripple effect through the tech industry and between governments who might try to follow suit.
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
Declutter your quarantine workspace (and brain)
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Minimalism doesn’t have to happen overnight
Business News5 days ago
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Online dating is evolving and maybe networking will too
Business Entrepreneur6 days ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Tech News5 days ago
How to personalize your site for every visitor without learning code
Business News4 days ago
You should apply to be on a board – why and how
Tech News2 weeks ago
4 ways startups prove their investment in upcoming technology trends