Although the document says he was caught and the 3.6 million was not lost, I wonder if he did in fact provide intel before returning to the United States. Company secrets are illegal to steal no matter who the perpetrator is, but its worse if the theft results in a national security breach.

America will always seek to provide entry for those allegiant to the United States, and people with loyalty ties to China may no longer be welcomed.

The FBI's document case study is really relevant to today's concern of US competitiveness, especially in relation to China. With the recent Innovation Bill, it is evident the the US is hoping to out-compete China in R&D and make sure to protect discoveries made in the tech and military industries. Recent acts, such as NSF for the Future Act, are also concerned about knowledge-sharing happening in universities, where Chinese students on visas have access to valuable research. The act calls for monitoring and restricting these students as alliance or pressure from China might cause them to share this research. This attitude goes against the nature of the scientific community, which has always viewed partnerships and cooperation as a positive attribute. Do you think these security measures are necessary, or is the case study provided one of many instances of data exploitation happening in the US?

The emphasis on climate change is important. Some may consider that extreme pollution and disregard for the environment should be considered domestic terrorism as it threatens the life and safety of Americans and infrastructure.

Hacktivists create very powerful statements when they breach systems like the police stations. However, they should be careful to not endanger any innocent people in their process. For example, if the police station's network was down, and someone needed emergency help, they would not be able to reach them.

Combatting domestic terrorism has been a national priority for the U.S. ever since 9/11. The US government has focused its efforts at keeping Americans safe, at home. In combination with gun violence, federal enforcement has a tough job in tracking, monitoring, and stopping lone or group terrorists. They must apprehend illegal networks before they are able to recruit and incite more people into their organizations. With the rise of cybersecurity and international terrorism, the policing of these networks has become increasingly difficult, and it is almost impossible to keep track of every viable threat. Racial and discriminatory violence is of special attention in the US because of its bicultural configuration. When many diverse people live in the same region, their cultures, religions, values and morals clash. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to create policies that appease all sides, and that's where anti-governmental sentiment comes from. The agencies working to stop domestic terrorism need to keep focusing on understanding where the hatred and bigotry is coming from in order to squash violent opposition.

We have all become extremely vulnerable in the face of convenience and expedited processes. All of our information is online and available for stealing. Perhaps the US should consider how to be less reliant on technology and have some old-school back up options.

It's good that New Zealand is tackling this issue now and investing resources to protect its citizens from cyber attacks. Better now than never.

Cyber warfare is an alarming threat because it can come from anywhere. Before, you would need physical troops, strategy, man power, and lots of money to attack a country. Today, you need a handful of cyber criminals, some computer software, and a malicious intent. One of the most concerning aspects of cyber attacks is that some offenders do it not for personal financial gain, but to stir up chaos that can seriously affect people's lives. Just the other week the US experienced a cyber attack on a pipeline, which caused panic buying of gas all over the country. Although this particular threat was neutralized and no one really suffered, the next attack could have much harsher consequences. As countries develop innovative technologies, they also have to invest in defensive cyber security. Cyber warfare will be the modern version of war, and although there may be less casualties, there may be scarier results back at home.

The statement "patriots are administering Hong Kong," forgot to include "patriots of the Chinese Communist Party. Surely they don't mean patriots of Hong Kong who will do their best to serve the interests of their people?

It's good that you bring up the point of a split culture between the UK and China. Its interesting to see the imperial effects on countries so long after we stopped viewing imperialism as an immediate threat.

"No legal proceedings may be instituted in respect of a decision made by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee of the HKSAR on the eligibility of a candidate.." Red flag. When objections to decisions or legislative proceedings are prohibited, immediately there is a atmosphere of mistrust and lack of transparency. As these new eligibility requirements are unconstitutional and anti-democratic, they would not hold up in court and they would receive more backlash from the public. In the past few years, Hong Kong has struggled to keep free speech and "power to the people" alive. China has stretched its controlling influence over the small island, and is carefully stripping away it's democratic liberties. The US, as well as other democratic defenders such as the EU, need to stand up for Hong Kong, and defend the fair representation of the region as well as fair voting rights.

That's insightful! Once more actors get involved in the region, there will be political shifts and maybe even a repeat of the middle eastern region. The Indo-Pacific region should be cautious with who meddles in their affairs.

I agree, it seems that Germany has had a "reality check" and only now is realizing the potential of the region. Hopefully they can develop trade policies that will be beneficial to all parties involved. Germany can also assist in tech-transfer.

I believe its timely for the German government (and by extension the EU) to "insert" themselves into the region and become a stakeholder. It is evident that with the growing economies of India, China, and other Indo-Pacific countries, their influence as a world power is undeniable. Germany, along with the US, want to make sure that Indo-Pacific development is in their best interests. Some of the policy guidelines include concern for trade and the environment. For example, open markets and free trade and open shipping routes. Germany wants to ensure their position in the world trade network and have access to the same materials. "Protecting our planet," is another key policy outline that Germany listed because when it comes to climate change, we all face the consequences of poor resource management. Looking at the document, you can see that Germany is trying to push EU fundamentals and principals onto the Indo-Pacific region. However, I think it will develop less predictability than the world imagines. Its a unique combination of cultures, languages and political systems, and this will be reflected in their foreign policy.

I didn't realize that North Korea was so dependent on China. Its a good thing that the UN and other countries can apply pressure on North Korea for the promise of trade.

Although the US sees China as its competitor, I think its a good thing that China is looking for stability on the Korean Peninsula. Maybe China is the liaison that the world needs to encourage North Korea to stop its nuclear activities.

The relationship between China and North Korea affects the entire world. According to the article, the relationship between their leaders has been a rollercoaster throughout history, but with more visits to each other's regions, it seems that China and North Korea have increasing diplomatic relations. If China supports more UN resolutions and the de-escalating of nuclear programs, maybe they will have a positive impact on North Korea. This is a new region for me so I'm exciting to learn about about the dynamics of various regions in Asia and how they relate to the US.

That's a really good point. Unfortunately, the radical news cycle online gets more viewership than authentic information that takes time to get accumulated and may be considered "boring."

It's a shame that the Hungarian government is influencing the Serbian one to have similar attitudes of anti-liberalism. Hopefully, the Serbian President Alexander Vucic will see more value in being a democratic state and joining the EU.