Don't try and belittle China's hypothetical response by ascribing it to some mystical belief in the need to keep face.
How about protecting their citizens from attack?
After all consider if some foreign power, say Iran, decided that a US citizen in the US had committed a crime against Iran, and so they hacked into US computers in an attempt to attack the targeted individual. How would the US react to that? I'm guessing a lot more belligerently than China would.
I wondered if it could be deliberate market manipulation as well. Probably just someone having a laugh, but you never know. I bet the SEC is looking into the number of short trades that happened just before the tweet was posted and which were quickly closed out before the market realised the tweet was fake.
And it is wrong to exploit stupid people. A fool and has money may well be quickly parted but when it comes to investment markets at least there are all sorts of rules about what you can and can't do and say. See insider trading, ponzi schemes, pump and dump, etc
It's not just the Canadian government taking that line.
I work in the UK for a US company, and each year we get circulated our corporate values and code of conduct statement. We have to read it and sign to say we have read it and understand it.
Within the code of conduct there is the line that we "owe a duty of loyalty" to the company and we "must at all times act in the company's best interest".
First up I have no idea why I owe them a duty of loyalty? They pay my wages, and I turn up to work. They have no loyalty to me, being instead beholden to the owners of the company (publicly listed in this case) so I certainly feel no compuction to be steadfastly loyal to the company.
And secondly, act at all times in the company's best interest? I'm certainly not going to do anything to damage my employer as I'm happy with the continuing wages for work situation. However, perhaps the company would be best served if I donated my kidney to our CEO? Or perhaps I should offer to take a paycut?
Absolute garbage. The only reason I feel at all comfortable signing on the code of conduct line is that I agree with most of the rest of the document, and I'm only signing to say that I understand it, not that I agree with it. I understand that the company has some deluded ideas about what I owe them.
Why? I'm sure you can point to anecdotes of private prisons having problems (this article for example). However I'm sure I can point to government run prisons being similarly poor.
The problem lies not with the structure of the managing committee, but with the fact power corrupts. See the Stanford prison experiment for an example of how otherwise good people can degenerate when given prisoners (even through they knew the prisoners were similarly good).
Until we have some cure for the human condition all we can do in prisons is have some form of checks and balances.
To my mind, the key quality of DRM is restrictions on what I can do with the file once I have bought (licensed?) it. A watermark does none of this, all it does is allow the copyright holder to trace which file was leaked onto bittorrent.
A watermark is akin to being given a personalised item. As an example, would you say that personalised songs which are otherwise DRM free, are encumbered by DRM? I don't think so.
However I agree with you that I'm not sure about how useful watermarking is in practice. As you say, files could be stolen. More likely to my mind is someone will figure out how to edit the watermark part of the file, and either replace it with a null string, an Anonymous slogan, or someone else's watermark.
So their [doctor's] stated goal -- eliminate all disease -- is in fact not in their own best interests. Obviously, this isn't ever a pressing issue because the rate at which doctors eliminate diseases is slow enough not to matter to them.
And you don't feel the need to question why they are curing disease so slowly?
In a related note, there's an interesting article over on Slate discussing the strange position we're in whereby law enforcement can use various non-lethal weapons on their citizenry, but the Geneva conventions prohibit their use on enemy combatants as causing "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering".
We need a Geneva convention on use of weapons on civilians!