Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CFR China Expert: US Tech Firms Should Worry About Beijing's New Anti-Terror Law

Posted by samzenpus on from the read-between-the-lines dept.

blottsie writes: In an interview with the Daily Dot on Tuesday, Adam Segal, director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program explained what China's new anti-terrorism law contains, what aspects of it remain uncertain, and how China's interest in encrypted technology fits into its longtime strategy of regulating speech within its borders. On the subject of Apple and Chinese relations he says: "We seem to be on a road of eventual confrontation between the Chinese government and Apple. Apple may have to make a decision about what it’s going to do to remain in the China market like lots of other companies. So far, it hasn’t been explicitly laid out that way. The Chinese government hasn’t said, 'We’re not going to allow end-to-end [encryption],' but that clearly seems to be the trend. I’m sure that U.S. tech companies that are providing [end-to-end encryption] are beginning to think that they may be facing a 'high noon at the O.K. Corral' kind of moment."

50 comments

  1. You first by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Chinese will wait until the US, UK and Australia implement this first, then will activate their own rules.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:You first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Chinese will wait until the US, UK and Australia implement this first, then will activate their own rules.

      Yes, some presidential candidates have said this, but now it is "controversial" because China said it?

      Might actually be fun. "If I'm elected to be your president, I'll follow in the footsteps of China to limit your encryption. Don't ask what you can encrypt for your country but ask what you can send in plain text for country!"

    2. Re:You first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US already implemented it. It is called CISA. Good luck.

    3. Re:You first by davester666 · · Score: 2

      All those candidates want the decryption ONLY for the US gov't. It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any other country.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:You first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any other country.

      Hrm. It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any country, including their own.

    5. Re:You first by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Hrm. It would be morally wrong for these tech companies to give in and do it for any country, including their own.

      Exactly in the same way it was morally wrong for Google to support censorship in China, in order to "do business there".

      For me, the day I saw that in the news, as many years ago as it was, was the day I knew "Do No Evil" was a piece of trash slogan they never intended to follow.

      That was the day I stopped using any Google "social" services, and started using other search engines again. Even Bing.

    6. Re:You first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general wish of the chinese citizens is that the censored stuff should remain censored. Just like kiddie porn is considered rightfully censored here in the west. I would wish them less compliant to authority, but that is their social structure and their culture. Insisting that they should replicate MY culture is wrong. As long as China doesn't intercept comms that is between endpoints outside china, I can have no beef in their actions at censoring and reading whatever happens, as long as they are still following the wishes of the general populace. And when not, it must be the populace itself changing the regime, not me or my representatives doing it.

    7. Re:You first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it will be the reverse.

      China will essentially force Apple to do it and then the US and every other nation will say "Us too!" with the "Don't blame us, blame the Chinese!"

    8. Re:You first by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The general wish of the chinese citizens is that the censored stuff should remain censored.

      And how did they arrive at that "opinion", do you think? It's an opinion that is not shared by any Western nation.

  2. You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 2

    If you're in I.T. and touch the China market, that's your question. If you make handcuffs, don't expect any business from me.

    1. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about manufacturers of testicle cuffs? Do they still get your business?

    2. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're more of a buttplug man.

    3. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by fnj · · Score: 1

      I'm sure tech companies are all shaking in their boots at the ones of dollars they will lose from you.

      He isn't the only one, you nameless tool.

    4. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make handcuffs, don't expect any business from me.

      I wanted to post an article about companies making handcuffs and then turning it around and saying "aha! you buy other stuff from this company", but I came across this:

      HANDCUFF COLLECTING-Why collect them?-How to spot fakes
      It includes gems like

      Union Hardware-Tower Handcuff Company became the "Ford" of handcuffs and Bean cuffs were the "Chevy".

      If an available cuff is described as "Old West" or "Slave Shackles" and said to have been found in an old barn from the Deep South or the seller's Great Grandfather was a Sheriff in Dodge City and used to lock up someone like Billy the Kid, use caution.

      It is fact that cuffs made in the early 19th and 20th century were beautiful works of art and were precise as well as smooth. The junk being past off these days as real are crude and rough.

      Another area to use extreme caution in is the Ball and Chain.

      I'm sure once I hit 50, I'll grow up.

    5. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not two Slashtards! That's the apocalypse for any company.

    6. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Oh no! Don't post such scary things. CEOs of tech companies all over the world are practically peeing themselves with worry!

    7. Re:You want to make keys, or handcuffs? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      If you make handcuffs, don't expect any business from me.

      Not even the pink ones that go so well with latex clothing?

  3. Let them. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Let the Chinese make their people potential victims, they will pay the price, not us.

    Of course our own government is trying the same thing. It that case I will simply be ignoring the law if it passes.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pretty damn simple. You make backdoors or let governments dictate slack ass security to the private sector then i'll fucking go elsewhere or do without. Pretty simple. The fucking legions of goddamn idiots that don't give a fuck make me sick.

    1. Re: sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where will you go when everywhere is the same? I think you grossly overestimate your importance.

  5. Simple solution by sunderland56 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    - create a new encryption algorithm with a government backdoor
    - ship it in builds destined for China, and make it the default
    - don't ship it anywhere else
    - now nobody outside of China is made insecure, *plus* savvy people in China can just disable it
    - profit!

    1. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would they do that when it'd just be cheaper to use the weak one eveywhere?

    2. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, given the current corporate atmosphere of "don't give a fuck"/race to the bottom, why wouldn't they just use the cheaper rdy-for-gov (maybe I should trademark that) swiss cheese encryption everywhere?

    3. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/China/USA/g

  6. Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple implementation of iMessage uses public key encryption; The device (iPhone) has a security chip that generates the keys and performs the encryption .... The public key is given out, while the private key is inaccessible to the CPU (even if it's rooted). This makes end-to-end encryption a de-facto part of the iMessage protocol-- but also makes it difficult to install an (undetectable) backdoor.

    1. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems to me that China doesn't need to confront Apple... or Google for that matter. They control the network. China can just continue to "encourage" their citizens to use state-friendly social media platforms, and continue to make it hard-to-impossible to use non-Chinese alternatives like Twitter, Whatsapp, or iMessage.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to one article I read, 85% all iPhone 5s(for example) are assembled in China. Why wouldn't they just "fix them up" themselves.

    3. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must admit I haven't ready about how iMessage works, but this must be a work of fiction. I have multiple devices and when someone sends me a message via iMessage, it arrives on all the devices at once. The sender can't know all of the devices I have, and there shouldn't be a discovery protocol to find out what devices I have to get their keys. My conclusion is that iMessage does not work this way.

      Perhaps every message uses Apple's public key from the sender to Apple, and then Apple knows all your devices, but that seems a little more complicated than necessary.

    4. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by mab · · Score: 1

      So if Apple never has your private key, how do messages arrive at all of your devices in a readable form? How do your private key(s) get from one device to the other?

      Simple answer: they don’t. You’ve actually got one set of keys for each device you add to iCloud, and each iMessage is encrypted independently for each device. So if you have two devices — say, an iPad and an iPhone — each message sent to you is actually encrypted (AES-128) and stored on Apple’s servers twice. Once for each device. When you pull down a message, it’s specifically encrypted for the device you’re on.

      http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/apple-explains-exactly-how-secure-imessage-really-is/

    5. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former member of CoreOS, I can say that you're partially correct with regards to the public key end-to-end scheme. It really comes down to which algorithm is used and the key length, though, doesn't it?

      Apple will continue to do business in China without any changes to the Messages protocol whatsoever. Make of that what you will.

    6. Re:Apple's implementation makes it difficult.. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Which, incidentally, means that it is likely possible for Apple to surreptitiously add a device to your account. So upon subpoena, it seems likely that Apple could grant access to all future messages, just not messages that have already been sent.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  7. The Council on Foreign Relations by hackus · · Score: 1

    Gag me

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:The Council on Foreign Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, Trilateral Commission. Nothing but a bunch of psychopathic, egotistical creeps who are bored with their billions of dollars and have turned to manipulating countries and their peoples for their own amusement. They should be tried as the terrorists that they are.

    2. Re: The Council on Foreign Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're the real power calling the shots. Those who really manage the world had had enough of the inefficiency of governments and are simply dictating their terms. Nations have no choices but to comply.

    3. Re:The Council on Foreign Relations by gtall · · Score: 1

      A conspiracy theorist's work is never done.

  8. Let 'em have both barrels by fnj · · Score: 1

    Everybody flood the whole sewer of China with tools of freedom.

  9. Treaty will have it by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Re-posting.

    China, India, the EU, America, etc, will come together on a treaty binding agreement by which each nation has access to their own citizens data without compromising the sovereignty and rights of others. Born out of this unholy alliance will be a "Government API" baked into the next iOS, OSX, Android, Windows, and other commercially available OSs**, and possibly at the hardware level too. What this means is that when you activate your new devices, you choose where you live (as you abide by their laws). From there, your encryption will be chosen with the system that the respective nation has access to.

    **I begin not to suspect what will happen to open source platforms other than deemed to be illegal (possibly).

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Treaty will have it by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Seems unlikely in practice, until you remember how precisely how stupid & lazy people are, myself first & foremost. That kind of govAPI, though, would hopefully kick more than just me & the Estonians awake.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    2. Re:Treaty will have it by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Remember the Clipper Chip? Yes, that could be brought back as an international standard of sorts. Imagine all PCs, Servers, Phones and consumer hardware having this per the law. Now, the only way to run an OS is for the kernel to be cryptographically signed. I'm sure there will be exceptions that allow for internal alpha and beta testing inside the buildings at Apple and Microsoft. But once the final release of Windows, OSX, or iOS goes public, the binaries must first be fingerprinted and the kernel signed (blessed) by some international consortium. Otherwise, the hardware wont be able to boot it up. This will be how Open Source OS's will be curtailed. That's not to say RedHat or CentOS won't be available, just be signed by the devil too. Don't play the game, don't boot. That simple.

      Think about it. Politicians LOVE - absolutely go orgasmic cream-in-their-pants bonkers at the idea of picking winners and loser in the market place. It's how they funnel lobbying money into their vile hands! All this will be pushed under the auspices of protecting against malware, protecting the homeland, and tracing hackers and pedophiles. Meanwhile, they will use this backdoor to blackmail political opposition and anyone else that seeks to dethrone or turn off the corrupt spigot of money and "contributions".

      Consider this a prophetic warning!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Treaty will have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be a blessing in disguise! Imagine the implication when the keys to decrypt every media stream become available. This pirates will have a field day! No more DRM wrappers for your itunes music library. Easily store all your streaming favourites for offline viewing.

  10. What will this do it open source? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And when do we get our damn 3D printers to make our own hardware that can't be controlled by the authorities?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:What will this do it open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can use the ones in prison, they are government sanctioned.

  11. /. meme about /. not supporting HTTPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been an ongoing meme of "yet Slashdot doesn't even support HTTPS".

    Now we know why. HTTPS will have been rendered completely futile anyway, by some time in the near future. It's already pretty useless.

  12. morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why an american company does business in a communist dictatorship is mind boggling. They sold their soul to the devil!

  13. Hurry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's match the Chinese in their patriotic legislation to catch a couple terrorists and mainly repress citizens, freedom and human rights! We can't wait, let the beatings begin!!

  14. Apple vs. China: Apple wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to see an Apple vs. China showdown. Apple will not bend to China's will. Tim Cook is a businessman, but he is also sensitive to human rights and he seems to possess a modicum of common sense. The Chinese people have gotten a taste of Apple and they like it. If China bans Apple products because Apple won't endanger the lives of activists and free-speech advocates, there will be no (legal) Apple products sold in China. Then a) the Chinese people will start to get (more) upset with their "foot in each camp" government, b) Apple will be elevated as the protector of human rights and free speech, c) Apple will be the scrappy kid who took on the bully, and d) all sorts of grey-market / bootleg Apple products will still find their way into China. Plus, there are already what - 1+ billion? - Apple devices in China. Is Big Red going to go house-by-house and confiscate devices??? China has already lost.

    1. Re:Apple vs. China: Apple wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's hand isn't that strong. On top of losing maybe a third of future global sales they would have their supply chains and manufacturing base wiped out. Speaking purely in strategic terms, Apple would be fucked.
      Like you say, Tim Cook is a businessman. He'll swallow his principles before taking losses like that.

  15. Imo, we have to worry about China... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently they've said "We're not afraid to go to war with you" to the USA my home. Ok, fine: We're FAR from 'afraid of you' as well. Nobody WANTS a fight. Nobody sane that is. However?

    They're getting their "national pride" up (via the Olympics & business doing better there) - these are signs to beware of, especially from a nation that LIMITS how many kids a family can have by force (afaik)... I'd imagine the USSR has more to worry about there than WE do - they're neighbors, & iirc, Russia took old lands of China's from them (land that they NEED if ANYONE needs land, an overcrowded nation does)...

    They've also REMOVED THE "1 child per family" law - this tells MYSELF @ LEAST, that they're making MORE 'bullet bags' in case of such a war occurring.

    * Beware of the Chinaman folks... he's the BIGGEST SINGLE DANGER TO THE USA THERE IS & the most intelligent + crafty.

    (They're to be BOTH respected, & feared - my father fought them in the Korean war & said "You can keep on shooting but they just come like a swarm of angry ants over their brothers' dead bodies & keep coming... you had to worry your gun jammed from overheating it was SO bad!")

    APK

    P.S.=> HOWEVER, in China's defense here? They have reasons - afaik GOOD ones - since the entire Housing debacle & hedge fund scandals were based on CHINESE SAVINGS they want their monies back - ok, understood & rightfully so - Clinton that FOOL (afaik, correct me if/when/where I am wrong here folks) promised them US lands & water if we didn't "make good" on the debt for payback (this is not the US citizen that did it - we're victims of political scum + banks & wealthy puppetmasters BEHIND them too) - they only want what is THEIRS... only problem I have with it personally? I as a US citizen didn't "make that deal", nor did any of you - our "fearless leaders" (not politicians again) did, fucking us... apk