(Q).
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened tariffs on an additional $100 billion worth of Chinese goods, on top of the $50 billion in import taxes he already has proposed against Beijing. Though none of the tariffs have taken effect, it's the latest posturing in a trade dispute that some fear could escalate into a trade war. For decades, Trump has complained about China's trade practices. One of his main complaints is what he calls Beijing's theft of U.S. intellectual property. Last month, Trump cited IP theft as justification for his proposed tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods. China retaliated by threatening its own tariffs on the same amount of U.S. goods. Trump then escalated the dispute, saying he would consider tripling the amount of goods to which tariffs would be applied. China gains access to U.S. technology by employing several tactics, which many observers have said are unfair or illegal. Beijing has long required that U.S. businesses transfer technology to Chinese companies as a precondition of entering the Chinese market. For instance, if you are a U.S. carmaker who wants to sell automobiles to China, Beijing requires that you team up with a local Chinese company, or face steep tariffs on imported vehicles.  In other cases, China requires U.S. companies to comply with localization requirements by storing sensitive data in the Chinese mainland. That increases the risk of intellectual property theft through means such as cyberattacks.It's difficult to quantify the value of technological knowledge. But according to an estimate last month by the U.S. trade representative, Chinese theft of American intellectual property costs between $225 billion and $600 billion every year. That rate is unsustainable, said top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow. "We can't afford to give up our technology," Kudlow said Friday. "When they steal our technology ... they're stealing the guts of our American future." The Chinese government has always denied carrying out the cyberattacks that frequently... Question: Who complains about Chinese theft of US intellectual property? Options: - not enough information   - The President   - Americans   - The congress === The correct answer is
(A).
The President


(Q).
It was a dream, then a place, then a memory. My father built it near the Suwannee River. I like to think it was in the heart of Florida, because it was, and is, in my heart. Its name was Dogland. Some people say you can know others if you know the central incidents that shaped their lives. But an incident is an island in time, and to know the effect of the island on those who land there, you must know something about the river they have traveled. And I must warn you before we begin, I don't know that river well. I visit that time and place like a ghost with poor vision and little memory. I look up the river and see fog rolling in. I look down the river, and the brightness of the approaching day blinds me. I see shapes moving behind me and beyond me, but who they are and what they do, I cannot say. I will tell what I know is true, and I will invent what I believe is true, and that, I think, is all you can ask any storyteller to do. I learned the Nix family history from the stories Pa told. Even at the age of four, I suspected that Pa's stories might not be perfectly true. When Pa said we Nixes came to North America as indentured servants working our way out of debtor's prison, Grandma Bette would make a face and say he couldn't know that. When he said we Nixes had Lakota and Ojibwe blood in our veins, Grandma Bette would say she wasn't prejudiced, but it simply wasn't so: she and Pa and his brothers and sisters were dark because her people were Black Dutch, from a part of Holland where everyone had black hair and black eyes. And then Grandma Bette wouldn't say a word for half an hour or more, a very long time for Grandma Bette to be quiet. Question: What place Pa built? Options: - Florida   - not enough information   - Dogland   - Black Dutch === The correct answer is
(A).
Dogland


(Q).
The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy. This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA. The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user — all without judicial oversight. The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way." But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations. "This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing ‘a typo' in the law,” the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online... Question: The FBI probably believes: Options: - it is not spying   - the data they look at is covered under the ECPA   - not enough information   - there are only minor 'typos' in the ECPA === The correct answer is
(A).
