Slashdot Mirror
US Pressed Chinese Firms To Show One Example of When They Resisted Request For Data From Chinese Government, But They Have Never Done So: WSJ (wsj.com)
The latest in the Huawei saga, which is increasing tension between the U.S. and China. WSJ reports about a remarkable event: Confronted with U.S. accusations of cyber espionage, Chinese companies and government officials often accuse Washington of hypocrisy, pointing to allegations in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the U.S. had been hacking into key Chinese networks for years. Western officials say systems of checks and balances in their countries allow for companies to challenge those demands, unlike in China.
To further highlight that difference, U.S. officials have repeatedly pressed Chinese companies to demonstrate to them one example of a time they resisted a request for data from the Chinese government, but they have never done so, according to a person familiar with those conversations. U.S. intelligence officials have suggested at times that their views on Huawei are informed by definitive examples of malfeasance, though they have so far refused to share such evidence publicly. When the House Intelligence Committee in 2012 published an unclassified report naming Huawei as a security risk, it spoke generally about a lack of trust lawmakers placed in China but steered clear of providing concrete examples of the company being caught engaging in nefarious activity.
To further highlight that difference, U.S. officials have repeatedly pressed Chinese companies to demonstrate to them one example of a time they resisted a request for data from the Chinese government, but they have never done so, according to a person familiar with those conversations. U.S. intelligence officials have suggested at times that their views on Huawei are informed by definitive examples of malfeasance, though they have so far refused to share such evidence publicly. When the House Intelligence Committee in 2012 published an unclassified report naming Huawei as a security risk, it spoke generally about a lack of trust lawmakers placed in China but steered clear of providing concrete examples of the company being caught engaging in nefarious activity.
But those execs are in the Human Plastic Show right now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... they just disappeared and were never heard from again.
Sounds like the spin doctors have thrown the old loaded question fallacy against the wall to see if it will stick
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
I bet AT&T or Verizon can't show a single example of a time they resisted a request from the American government.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The issue is that Chinese firms directly are owned and micro managed by the Chinese government. The US chooses to avoid electronics that are shown to have been part of China's spy efforts. China will, naturally, downplay this difference as if there is no difference at all. There is. Chinese companies directly assist China in spying on the West. US firms do not directly do so.
Please resist your government, but Apple is teh evil for resisting the good ol' US of A
Before asking for evidence that the companies resisted requested can we see some evidence that such requests were ever made. While I have no doubt that such requests do happen (or maybe the Chinese government just hacks straight in and doesn't bother asking) i'd like to know more about the scale of them. This might not be easy as I doubt the government publishes much about their data requests, but I'm sure US authorities have some idea of what is going on.
What a bizarre statement "U.S. officials have repeatedly pressed Chinese companies to demonstrate to them one example of a time they resisted a request for data from the Chinese government". News flash, China has a communist government. No individual or company has the right to resist the government. Bad things happen to anyone/thing that does try it. Any company stupid enough to try that in China would quickly cease to exist and therefore would not be able to demonstrate anything to anyone.
>> Western officials say systems of checks and balances in their countries allow for companies to challenge those demands, unlike in China
USA to large tech: hey company with whom we have a large contract - we'd like to see details on X. If you can't show us, that's cool, but don't forget we're a big fan of your services...today anyway
Arguing with my mother, my father, their siblings, their friends (all Chinese descent), I have learned that they can't handle criticism. Over the past 30 some odd years, in practically every conversation which included constructive criticism they've been completely defensive.
--
Conversations usually go like this:
"Why don't my dumplings look as good as yours, can you help me?"
-Them
"If you pinch the edges of the dumpling too hard, the contents will leak out because you're overly thinning out the dough skin"
-Me
"Your posture is terrible, who taught you to stand like that, you should be ashamed for bringing shame to your family name!"
-Them
"How is that related?"
-Me
"You are a terrible person!"
-Them
"I'm trying to ha,,"
-Me
"I can't believe I'm related to you"
-Them
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
-Me
---
Armed with this knowledge, I can only imagine how closed session proceedings go with Chinese Executive Leadership.
Working against the government in China is a crime (or at the very least gets you on a bad side of the dictatorial government). Why would any company admit to doing it, even if they did?
China is far from a free country. China also has way less freedom than even the shittiest western countries. You can end up being reeducated for even asking a serious question to the local party officials. The icing on the cake is it's a terrible place for the average worker too. The workers have zilch rights even worse than at the crappiest U.S. companies. The pollution problems in China make super-fund sites in the U.S. look like nature preserves.
The worst part is the party doesn't even have any competition. It's the same old story, power corrupts, and in a one party state, that's a hell of a lot of power.
The USA is certainly no saint
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden
https://electricalstrategies.com/about/in-the-news/spies-in-the-xerox-machine/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk_zpjK3cTo&t=28s
Shows how well the US treats its allies
What the USA does not want is equipment out there they CANT hack or get backdoors installed, and they certainly don't want other countries competing and taking away money from US companies either.
In the same TFA,
Western officials say systems of checks and balances in their countries allow for companies to challenge those demands, unlike in China.
and
U.S. intelligence officials have suggested at times that their views on Huawei are informed by definitive examples of malfeasance, though they have so far refused to share such evidence publicly.
In the other news, they will also refuse to share real evidence of Iraq WMDs with the public.
In China the Communist party wants the crypto and code.
In the USA PRISM got the crypto.
The EU makes the same demands on what publishing can be on social media.
Should a Western brand invest and make its products in China understand what the Communist party will demand.
Of the US brand.
From all workers who are good Communists.
Try a nation with the rule of law and who will support US freedoms.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I don't have much faith in China but maybe they have a legal system for making requests and follow it.
If the request is legal (even if we think it shouldn't), there is no point in resisting the request.
OTOH, if they are making secret, illegal, requests, why would WSJ expect the companies to simply tell? I don't remember Apple talking about resisting PRISM before Snowden.
What about when they resisted the US government? That's pretty much all I care about.
No seriously, how often do US company refuse to hand over data to the NSA ? Because we are not speaking of refusing data to the local police so warrant don't count. Let us get real. No US company ever resisted the government either.
This from the country where the "national security" court approves 99% of government requests. The country that was caught intercepting computer hardware in the mail and implanting spychips before sending them along. I'm all for chastising China for their misbehavior, but lets also give the US government an earful for their massive spy apparatus both domestic AND international.
Chinese most likely has them, just like the US does.
It lays bare the lie that the "Western officials say systems of checks and balances in their countries allow for companies to challenge those demands, unlike in China." The NSA doesn't bother waiting for a western country to challenge a demand if they can just intercept the equipment in transit, modify it & reseal it. The company can legally claim ignorance and the USG still gets what it wants.
You should against your government. Not in my country, lol.
You can criticize "whataboutism" if "whatabout'ed" fault is not committed by yourself (or your own country in this context.) However, if yourself commits the same fault that you use to criticize your opponent, or even worse launching a war on the same accusation, that shows your immoral characteristic -- it's outright evil.
...hosted by a Chinese corporation. So much for Tim Cook's proclamation that "privacy is a fundamental human right." Apparently not.
Facebook, or Amazon which have data of 80% of everyone in the world, this comparison is not relevant.
FAGGOT BEAR YOU ARE A MORON.
ALL the western companies with FEW exceptions fought those NSL's tooth and nail. CEO's resigned in protest, the very CONCEPT of the warrant canary exists because they resisted as far as legally possible. In China, ZERO attempt.
I'm not saying everything the US does is right, and far from it, but to say that China is on par with western open societies in ANY REAL WORLD METRIC is probably bullshit, no matter which one you'd pick.
The law allows the intel agencies and likely police too to tell businesses not to tell anyone that the government has an order to get data."We don'twant to scare off the terrorists" is the excuse, but the power is there. AT&T et al have to break the law to tell you that they've been ordered to hand over data if that law is invoked in the order.
Not forgetting that US companies have been handing over data for longer than they've existed in China.
I don't know of any "tooth and nail" fighting over that.
And try a public discourse with western politicians over it and you take the contrarian side of it. You'll find that the shibboleths you found with the chinese people are mirrored in a different guise in western society.
1) People must be free
2) Government bad
3) Private enterprise good
4) We are better than everyone else
are the shibboleth four horsemen of western politics. Even the left wing have, until VERY recently, been solidly pro free market neocapitalist policies where government by definition is the worst possible solution to anything.
Everyone knows.. you're a chick cocksucker.. no need to remind everyone ALL THE TIME. You fucking cocksucker.
Heres a fact: ALL the world's Rhinos are being killed because stupid Chinese believe snorting ground up rhino horn will give them a magically larger penis.
TINY CHINESE PENISES are causing the rhino to go extinct. Thats a fact. Fuck you you tiny chink cock sucker.
Tell us about the Rhinos Daddy... we will never see them because Chinese people believe in magical cock growing by snorting ground up dead animals.
And obviously it works.. just look at all those HUGE CHINESE PENISES in porn right?
Not every society believes in the equal rights of all, some even practice archaic practices like public beheading blasphemy trials.
Its up to us who are THEIR BETTERS to show them they are wrong. You fucking chink goof cocksucking faggot.
it's better to snort rhino horns than to molest children like other people with small penises do instead.
It seems to me that the U.S. government asking this question, is a poor way to go about making their case. I sort of get what they are trying to do but people don't normally attack an issue this way for several reasons.
There are reasons why one might not get an affirmative answer to the question, "give us an example of resisting a Chinese government request for information." These range from rather weak and implausible, all the way to, 'very likely':
- Are you asking the right companies?
- Are you asking the right people in those companies?
- Would a Chinese company want to publicize an information dispute with their government (has cultural, political and economic dimensions). Domestic Chinese considerations might lean towards 'No';
- Do Chinese companies see any value in getting embroiled in an international dust-up with the US? They could easily view this as the realm of politicians and diplomacy and not corporate life;
- What do the customers of those Chinese companies think? If it causes problems with the customers, then it almost certainly isn't worth getting involved in.