11 ms·

What's stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a "national security risk"? This is, by all account, a shorts

What's stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a "national security risk"? This is, by all account, a shortsighted move

ejanus 6y ago
But if Chinese social media firms are freely operating in the USA why can't the likes of FB and Twitter be allowed same free access in their market. Let's not see this as harming anybody but this is one of the ways to force China to open up and allow foreign businesses(social media) to spread in their domain. Imagine being forced to open a WeChat account just to chat with someone in China. If this kind of business model is allowed to continue only Chinese companies would thrive in the future.
- peacefulhat 6y ago
  It's not going to work. It's just going to cut off Chinese in America from talking to their friends and family. Evil.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- PikachuEXE 6y ago
  Agreed. It's the China government started the trend of banning apps from foreign countries so that their own companies can grow and spread outside China. I see this ban as a late but fair move.
  - crawlcrawler 6y ago
    >> I see this ban as a late but fair move. A late but fair move to achieve what, exactly?
    - rtx 6y ago
      Maybe to show benefits of natural law.
      - crawlcrawler 6y ago
        What are the benefits? In this context they are not clear to me. "If you punch me in the face then, later, I'll punch _you_ in the face". This type of behavior may be par for the course in USA but how is it good for humanity?
        ooobit2 6y ago
        I've been asking the same question about Black Lives Matter causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.
        crawlcrawler 6y ago
        May I offer my apologies for saying the USA act violent and dominant. You're not all violent and dominant. I'm sorry. Friends?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      “Tit for tat”. Not saying whether I agree or not, just saying that it is, according to at least some people, a reason in and of itself.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      Reduce CCP's influence on the world.
      - chrischen 6y ago
        CCP basically equals China and for most intents and purposes, Chinese people. Limiting their influence is just a way of saying to limit the rise and influence of China and the companies/people there, because there's no way for any Chinese person or company that has vested interests in the market there to escape the accusations and comply with any demands from the West except to completely cease operation of business there. Any person from China, or company from China, can simply be canceled by saying "they are a subject of the communist party."
  - est 6y ago
    > I see this ban as a late but fair move. Governments ban apps at will? Sounds like a Communist Regime move.
- greatpatton 6y ago
  US companies are not forbidden to operate, they don't want to comply with Chinese surveillance laws... Apple who decided to comply indirectly by letting a Chinese company manage the data, is offering all their services there. This is a public image question for Western world companies more than anything.
  - makomk 6y ago
    The whole reason Apple let a Chinese company manage their customers' data is because the Chinese government changed the law to forbid them operate those kind of cloud services for Chinese customers themselves, the same reason other companies like Amazon have to let Chinese companies run their version of AWS: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh... "In a statement, Apple said it had to comply with recently introduced Chinese laws that require cloud services offered to Chinese citizens be operated by Chinese companies and that the data be stored in China. It said that while the company’s values don’t change in different parts of the world, it is subject to each country’s laws." Also note how the Chinese government effectively set up and runs this company, so the government more or less forced Apple to give their Chinese operations to them.
- gdoptimizer 6y ago
  This is just wishful thinking in the current situation. Don’t expect Chinese government to reverse what it has been doing for years in this political shitshow. Chinese living in US are unfortunately sandwiched in the between and helpless.
- akg_67 6y ago
  I guess, like China, USA is becoming authoritarian state. It is not about reciprocity. USA was considered the beacon of success and role model compared to China. Recent actions by USA justify other countries to do the same against foreign products and services. USA has no leg to stand on when other countries block US products and services. Good luck creating new Apple, Google, and Facebook scale companies.
- wonnage 6y ago
  Yeah, show them the power of the free world by checks notes banning all their apps, which is only constitutionally possible because the app stores are controlled by two American companies, and the ban technically works on the companies rather than banning the apps directly, proving the value of a sophisticated Western legal system!!!
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    You can't show them anything anyway, it's all censored there.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    What do two companies have to do with constitutionality?
- pishpash 6y ago
  And how does following suit not in fact ratify the business model because now banning on security grounds is legitimate? (Note that nowhere is the justification or condition stated to be one of reciprocal market access.) Isn't it interesting that there are laws on the books and authority vested in a single man to do this already? If this isn't struck down by the courts, then it just shows to the world, not for the first time, that America's vaunted values are a pretty thin veneer, conveniently discarded when it suits.
- tobias3 6y ago
  China does it, so it is okay for us to do it is just a very weak defense of this behaviour for us looking at this from outside of China and the US. The US stood for free markets, democracy and human rights and (at least) pretended to make international decisions based on those values. Now the fig leaf is gone and it is clear that those are mostly used to make transactions to US benefit even if it comes at the cost to others. If you value something like free markets, you stand by it even if it comes at a cost in the near future. If opaque TikTok recommendation engines are a problem, maybe regulate them in a way that solves the problem in general? That would hurt Youtube, Facebook and co. but it also would make the EU more comfortable in the negotiation for the Privacy Shield successor.
  - jatins 6y ago
    US banning Chineese apps is an anti-China move and not an anti-free market move. An anti free market move would be protecting their own companies against all global competition, irrespective of country.
    - CloudNetworking 6y ago
      They are protecting their own companies against all global competition, irrespective of country. It just happens that only China represents a serious threat to US hegemony in this market. Edit: This comment was being voted positively (+4) until the US folks started to wake up (now sitting at 0) :)
      - what_ever 6y ago
        +4 to 0 is not THAT much of a difference to be called out tbh. So not sure if it tells you enough about US folks starting to wake up.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      It is both, and in its arbitrary application, it's even worse than a purely anti-free-market move, because it's not even principled. Isolationism and domestic protectionism, if those were the given reasons, would at least be principled.
- megous 6y ago
  The problem is lack of use of open protocols, not any single company in particular. Having to sign up with FB or Google to be able to chat with people there is really no different to me (and it was not always the case in case of Goolgle). At least in case of Google, I can still send e-mails to Google accounts from anywhere. This business model was allowed to continue in US, and now I can't communicate with Google users as I could in the past via jabber.
- chrischen 6y ago
  This is nonsensical. Even if China bans American social media apps for no reason, that's no reason for us to copy their authoritarian, speech-suppressing tactics. That being said, China levies rules on foreign companies that are levied across all companies, and some foreign companies don't want to play by those rules. That's totally different from an outright ban based on "national security." Just think about it, how is Wechat/TikTok supposed to even comply with US demands? It's clearly a political move. Plus, Wechat users in American know they're being watched by the communist party, whereas Facebook users don't even know how much they're being watched by the US government...
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > Even if China bans American social media apps for no reason, that's no reason for us to copy their authoritarian, speech-suppressing tactics. There absolutely is a valid reason to be authoritarian towards authoritarians. They get what they preach and deserve. It is the same principle of morality of an action of self-defense, when a physical force is applied on those who initiated a physical force in the first place.
- throw33432 6y ago
  I recall that FB, Twitter, and Google were all available in China at one point, but they left because they didn’t want to follow China’s information and data laws.
  - markus_zhang 6y ago
    yeah and fb and google still have ads revenue from China
fxtentacle 6y ago
They declared the touch controls for the windshield wipers a distraction, so that they can fine Tesla owners for using it. In my opinion, creating liability for the buyer will be much more effective than trying to battle Tesla directly. So they are taking action to protect their local car industry. It's just that as long as the power dynamic is that Trump looks like a stubborn toddler while Merkel is the responsible parent, the US won't be able to do much about Tesla taking a hit. Plus, I'm not sure how much Trump likes Musk... so maybe he's willingly accepting it.
unicornporn 6y ago
> This is, by all account, a shortsighted move Politicians tend to be shortsighted (reelection, next term). That's partly why not enough has happened (or will happen, under this political paradigm) when it comes to the environmental issues our habitat is facing.
ludston 6y ago
I'm not sure that having dash cam footage is analogous to having access to private conversations to the degree of a social media company.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  In some ways, it is worse. At least the participants in a social media chat are volunteers. Cameras everywhere in cars with uploads to a central facility could be used to spy on the general public without their knowledge or consent. Some people will probably argue at this point that there is no right to privacy in a public place. I disagree on both moral and pragmatic grounds with such an absolute statement in light of modern technologies and what privacy means (or should mean) now, but more importantly, the culture and laws in some parts of the world disagree too. Restricting uploads of dash cam footage would be a rational response to that situation.
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    Dashcams are already regulated in Germany and Austria. People have been ticketed for always on dash cams; only those that are triggered activated (button pushed or shock detected) are allowed. (And yes, I know they use a buffer) And even without that, there are other laws that would make it illegal for Tesla to just download cam footage without solid reasons. Hell even GDPR would apply, as it would contain personal information (license plates), and the penalties are severe ("€10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, whichever amount is higher").
jjeaff 6y ago
The fact that we are allies with Germany and that the US probably buys a lot more from Germany than Germany buys from the US. With China, well, they are already blocking lots of American software companies so this would be more of a proportional response than anything else.
- qkhhly 6y ago
  proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission?
  - ejanus 6y ago
    Path that is harmful and injurious to conscience and business is worse than daylight robbery.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission? The real question is, why did the West went along with that bad deal at first place and allowed China into the WTO under these conditions. It was extremely short sighted.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Because it was actually a very good deal for the West, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth one hears. China had to carry out massive economic reforms in order to join the WTO, such as the privatization or splitting up of many state-owned enterprises, large reductions in tariffs, opening up of many sectors to foreign investment, the creation of a legal system to protect IP, and much more. Moreover, China joined under unusual terms that allowed other countries to more easily retaliate against China - sort of a probationary status. Western companies did extremely well in this relationship. Much of the growth in the West over the past few decades is thanks to China's opening-up.
rubber_duck 6y ago
TBH I can see how Tesla could be labelled that, and if it was a Chinese company I'd suspect it would eventually, the spying potential from all those streaming cameras and AI without any insight or oversight of the process. Germany is in bed with the US, especially the secret service.
- puranjay 6y ago
  Not sure how long Germany, or Europe for that matter, remains in bed with US. The current administration is isolationist and if the future ones adopt the same policies, we might see a decoupling of Europe and USA. Won't happen overnight but if I were a gambling man, I would wager on it. I don't think after all this we can go back to the old world order.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rubber_duck 6y ago
    I think a big part in this story will be Brexit and how much UK turns to US for trade partnership and how much friction that causes over EU industry interest groups.
luckylion 6y ago
The US is stopping Germany from banning Teslas, it's a matter of power. The US wouldn't be acting that way if they weren't a military super power, and they certainly wouldn't accept it if anyone acted that way towards them unless that country has nukes.
pjc50 6y ago
Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany? EU countries don't get to have "national security" that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus/Boeing conflict. That's been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war. The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.
- tonfa 6y ago
  > Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany? Do german people really care about those? (besides the obvious economic benefits in the towns where those troops are stationed due to local spending) I always thought it benefited the US more than germany (easier access to eastern europe and middle east).
  - orbifold 6y ago
    I think GP meant to imply that parts of the EU are effectively still US client states and not totally void of US influence on their politics. It's pretty common for top politicians in Germany to be part of some transatlantic organisation set up by the US ("Atlantikbrücke", ...). Same goes for journalists in leading news papers, which will result in more favourable US press coverage.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    My point was that any consideration of the US as a "national security threat" to Germany should take into account the physical national security and ask what national security actually means when there are troops from the other country stationed in yours (along with their associated CIA listening posts etc). It makes it very hard to suddenly treat the US as a hostile power. "The cars have to go but the troops can stay" is obviously nonsense.
  - anthonypasq 6y ago
    Germany has the largest overseas hospital for Americans. Its an extremely important strategic resource. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Center#:~:text=The%20Landstuhl%20Regional%20Medical%20Center,coming%20from%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Cen....
MattGaiser 6y ago
> What's stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a "national security risk"? Nothing. And it would not surprise me if Germany did it or at least put up a lot of barriers to help Volkswagen.
- comoesposible 6y ago
  Hence Tesla is building the Berlin Giga. It's not so much against straight out bans, but against Germany lobbying for all sorts of regulations in the EU to limit Tesla's market access. With Tesla now having a huge factory in Germany, suddenly Germany will lobby in favor of Tesla. Didn't people understand from the start that this was the primary reason why Musk chose Germany?
orbifold 6y ago
Well Tesla's sentry mode and sensor suite that is connected to the internet could actually pose a massive security risk. I wouldn't be surprised if they were banned from entering military installations and other sensitive areas, not that Germany has that many of them that aren't open to US military personnel.
- castratikron 6y ago
  Already happening in USA https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/171515/not-allowing-tesla-on-military-bases https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/171515/not-allowing-tesl...
comoesposible 6y ago
That's comparing apples and elephants. Also, there are already laws in Germany about how long such images may be stored and how they may be used.
fulafel 6y ago
I think a better comparison/scenario is the PI data hoovering cadre of US SM companies.
pmorici 6y ago
The understanding that the US would respond in kind by banning the import of VW Group vehicles or putting a very high tariff on them. In any case it wouldn’t be in Germany’s interest with the new Tesla factory going up there.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  What a brittle and fragile peace. If one country gets a nationalist leader in power, I'll lose access to all their goods because my leader is an idiot. Awesome
jb775 6y ago
The difference is that Tesla isn't headquartered in a communist nation that has the ability to take complete control of all business decisions. Also, Tesla doesn't have 80 million monthly active users in Germany who are young & impressionable.

What's stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a "national security risk"? This is, by all account, a shortsighted move

ejanus 6y ago

But if Chinese social media firms are freely operating in the USA why can't the likes of FB and Twitter be allowed same free access in their market. Let's not see this as harming anybody but this is one of the ways to force China to open up and allow foreign businesses(social media) to spread in their domain. Imagine being forced to open a WeChat account just to chat with someone in China. If this kind of business model is allowed to continue only Chinese companies would thrive in the future.

peacefulhat 6y ago
It's not going to work. It's just going to cut off Chinese in America from talking to their friends and family. Evil.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
PikachuEXE 6y ago
Agreed. It's the China government started the trend of banning apps from foreign countries so that their own companies can grow and spread outside China. I see this ban as a late but fair move.
- crawlcrawler 6y ago
  >> I see this ban as a late but fair move. A late but fair move to achieve what, exactly?
  - rtx 6y ago
    Maybe to show benefits of natural law.
    - crawlcrawler 6y ago
      What are the benefits? In this context they are not clear to me. "If you punch me in the face then, later, I'll punch _you_ in the face". This type of behavior may be par for the course in USA but how is it good for humanity?
      - ooobit2 6y ago
        I've been asking the same question about Black Lives Matter causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.
      - crawlcrawler 6y ago
        May I offer my apologies for saying the USA act violent and dominant. You're not all violent and dominant. I'm sorry. Friends?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    “Tit for tat”. Not saying whether I agree or not, just saying that it is, according to at least some people, a reason in and of itself.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    Reduce CCP's influence on the world.
    - chrischen 6y ago
      CCP basically equals China and for most intents and purposes, Chinese people. Limiting their influence is just a way of saying to limit the rise and influence of China and the companies/people there, because there's no way for any Chinese person or company that has vested interests in the market there to escape the accusations and comply with any demands from the West except to completely cease operation of business there. Any person from China, or company from China, can simply be canceled by saying "they are a subject of the communist party."
- est 6y ago
  > I see this ban as a late but fair move. Governments ban apps at will? Sounds like a Communist Regime move.
greatpatton 6y ago
US companies are not forbidden to operate, they don't want to comply with Chinese surveillance laws... Apple who decided to comply indirectly by letting a Chinese company manage the data, is offering all their services there. This is a public image question for Western world companies more than anything.
- makomk 6y ago
  The whole reason Apple let a Chinese company manage their customers' data is because the Chinese government changed the law to forbid them operate those kind of cloud services for Chinese customers themselves, the same reason other companies like Amazon have to let Chinese companies run their version of AWS: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh... "In a statement, Apple said it had to comply with recently introduced Chinese laws that require cloud services offered to Chinese citizens be operated by Chinese companies and that the data be stored in China. It said that while the company’s values don’t change in different parts of the world, it is subject to each country’s laws." Also note how the Chinese government effectively set up and runs this company, so the government more or less forced Apple to give their Chinese operations to them.
gdoptimizer 6y ago
This is just wishful thinking in the current situation. Don’t expect Chinese government to reverse what it has been doing for years in this political shitshow. Chinese living in US are unfortunately sandwiched in the between and helpless.
akg_67 6y ago
I guess, like China, USA is becoming authoritarian state. It is not about reciprocity. USA was considered the beacon of success and role model compared to China. Recent actions by USA justify other countries to do the same against foreign products and services. USA has no leg to stand on when other countries block US products and services. Good luck creating new Apple, Google, and Facebook scale companies.
wonnage 6y ago
Yeah, show them the power of the free world by checks notes banning all their apps, which is only constitutionally possible because the app stores are controlled by two American companies, and the ban technically works on the companies rather than banning the apps directly, proving the value of a sophisticated Western legal system!!!
- himinlomax 6y ago
  You can't show them anything anyway, it's all censored there.
- kortilla 6y ago
  What do two companies have to do with constitutionality?
pishpash 6y ago
And how does following suit not in fact ratify the business model because now banning on security grounds is legitimate? (Note that nowhere is the justification or condition stated to be one of reciprocal market access.) Isn't it interesting that there are laws on the books and authority vested in a single man to do this already? If this isn't struck down by the courts, then it just shows to the world, not for the first time, that America's vaunted values are a pretty thin veneer, conveniently discarded when it suits.
tobias3 6y ago
China does it, so it is okay for us to do it is just a very weak defense of this behaviour for us looking at this from outside of China and the US. The US stood for free markets, democracy and human rights and (at least) pretended to make international decisions based on those values. Now the fig leaf is gone and it is clear that those are mostly used to make transactions to US benefit even if it comes at the cost to others. If you value something like free markets, you stand by it even if it comes at a cost in the near future. If opaque TikTok recommendation engines are a problem, maybe regulate them in a way that solves the problem in general? That would hurt Youtube, Facebook and co. but it also would make the EU more comfortable in the negotiation for the Privacy Shield successor.
- jatins 6y ago
  US banning Chineese apps is an anti-China move and not an anti-free market move. An anti free market move would be protecting their own companies against all global competition, irrespective of country.
  - CloudNetworking 6y ago
    They are protecting their own companies against all global competition, irrespective of country. It just happens that only China represents a serious threat to US hegemony in this market. Edit: This comment was being voted positively (+4) until the US folks started to wake up (now sitting at 0) :)
    - what_ever 6y ago
      +4 to 0 is not THAT much of a difference to be called out tbh. So not sure if it tells you enough about US folks starting to wake up.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    It is both, and in its arbitrary application, it's even worse than a purely anti-free-market move, because it's not even principled. Isolationism and domestic protectionism, if those were the given reasons, would at least be principled.
megous 6y ago
The problem is lack of use of open protocols, not any single company in particular. Having to sign up with FB or Google to be able to chat with people there is really no different to me (and it was not always the case in case of Goolgle). At least in case of Google, I can still send e-mails to Google accounts from anywhere. This business model was allowed to continue in US, and now I can't communicate with Google users as I could in the past via jabber.
chrischen 6y ago
This is nonsensical. Even if China bans American social media apps for no reason, that's no reason for us to copy their authoritarian, speech-suppressing tactics. That being said, China levies rules on foreign companies that are levied across all companies, and some foreign companies don't want to play by those rules. That's totally different from an outright ban based on "national security." Just think about it, how is Wechat/TikTok supposed to even comply with US demands? It's clearly a political move. Plus, Wechat users in American know they're being watched by the communist party, whereas Facebook users don't even know how much they're being watched by the US government...
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  > Even if China bans American social media apps for no reason, that's no reason for us to copy their authoritarian, speech-suppressing tactics. There absolutely is a valid reason to be authoritarian towards authoritarians. They get what they preach and deserve. It is the same principle of morality of an action of self-defense, when a physical force is applied on those who initiated a physical force in the first place.
throw33432 6y ago
I recall that FB, Twitter, and Google were all available in China at one point, but they left because they didn’t want to follow China’s information and data laws.
- markus_zhang 6y ago
  yeah and fb and google still have ads revenue from China

fxtentacle 6y ago

They declared the touch controls for the windshield wipers a distraction, so that they can fine Tesla owners for using it. In my opinion, creating liability for the buyer will be much more effective than trying to battle Tesla directly. So they are taking action to protect their local car industry. It's just that as long as the power dynamic is that Trump looks like a stubborn toddler while Merkel is the responsible parent, the US won't be able to do much about Tesla taking a hit. Plus, I'm not sure how much Trump likes Musk... so maybe he's willingly accepting it.

unicornporn 6y ago

> This is, by all account, a shortsighted move Politicians tend to be shortsighted (reelection, next term). That's partly why not enough has happened (or will happen, under this political paradigm) when it comes to the environmental issues our habitat is facing.

ludston 6y ago

I'm not sure that having dash cam footage is analogous to having access to private conversations to the degree of a social media company.

Silhouette 6y ago
In some ways, it is worse. At least the participants in a social media chat are volunteers. Cameras everywhere in cars with uploads to a central facility could be used to spy on the general public without their knowledge or consent. Some people will probably argue at this point that there is no right to privacy in a public place. I disagree on both moral and pragmatic grounds with such an absolute statement in light of modern technologies and what privacy means (or should mean) now, but more importantly, the culture and laws in some parts of the world disagree too. Restricting uploads of dash cam footage would be a rational response to that situation.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  Dashcams are already regulated in Germany and Austria. People have been ticketed for always on dash cams; only those that are triggered activated (button pushed or shock detected) are allowed. (And yes, I know they use a buffer) And even without that, there are other laws that would make it illegal for Tesla to just download cam footage without solid reasons. Hell even GDPR would apply, as it would contain personal information (license plates), and the penalties are severe ("€10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, whichever amount is higher").

jjeaff 6y ago

The fact that we are allies with Germany and that the US probably buys a lot more from Germany than Germany buys from the US. With China, well, they are already blocking lots of American software companies so this would be more of a proportional response than anything else.

qkhhly 6y ago
proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission?
- ejanus 6y ago
  Path that is harmful and injurious to conscience and business is worse than daylight robbery.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission? The real question is, why did the West went along with that bad deal at first place and allowed China into the WTO under these conditions. It was extremely short sighted.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Because it was actually a very good deal for the West, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth one hears. China had to carry out massive economic reforms in order to join the WTO, such as the privatization or splitting up of many state-owned enterprises, large reductions in tariffs, opening up of many sectors to foreign investment, the creation of a legal system to protect IP, and much more. Moreover, China joined under unusual terms that allowed other countries to more easily retaliate against China - sort of a probationary status. Western companies did extremely well in this relationship. Much of the growth in the West over the past few decades is thanks to China's opening-up.

rubber_duck 6y ago

TBH I can see how Tesla could be labelled that, and if it was a Chinese company I'd suspect it would eventually, the spying potential from all those streaming cameras and AI without any insight or oversight of the process. Germany is in bed with the US, especially the secret service.

puranjay 6y ago
Not sure how long Germany, or Europe for that matter, remains in bed with US. The current administration is isolationist and if the future ones adopt the same policies, we might see a decoupling of Europe and USA. Won't happen overnight but if I were a gambling man, I would wager on it. I don't think after all this we can go back to the old world order.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rubber_duck 6y ago
  I think a big part in this story will be Brexit and how much UK turns to US for trade partnership and how much friction that causes over EU industry interest groups.

luckylion 6y ago

The US is stopping Germany from banning Teslas, it's a matter of power. The US wouldn't be acting that way if they weren't a military super power, and they certainly wouldn't accept it if anyone acted that way towards them unless that country has nukes.

pjc50 6y ago

Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany? EU countries don't get to have "national security" that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus/Boeing conflict. That's been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war. The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.

tonfa 6y ago
> Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany? Do german people really care about those? (besides the obvious economic benefits in the towns where those troops are stationed due to local spending) I always thought it benefited the US more than germany (easier access to eastern europe and middle east).
- orbifold 6y ago
  I think GP meant to imply that parts of the EU are effectively still US client states and not totally void of US influence on their politics. It's pretty common for top politicians in Germany to be part of some transatlantic organisation set up by the US ("Atlantikbrücke", ...). Same goes for journalists in leading news papers, which will result in more favourable US press coverage.
- pjc50 6y ago
  My point was that any consideration of the US as a "national security threat" to Germany should take into account the physical national security and ask what national security actually means when there are troops from the other country stationed in yours (along with their associated CIA listening posts etc). It makes it very hard to suddenly treat the US as a hostile power. "The cars have to go but the troops can stay" is obviously nonsense.
- anthonypasq 6y ago
  Germany has the largest overseas hospital for Americans. Its an extremely important strategic resource. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Center#:~:text=The%20Landstuhl%20Regional%20Medical%20Center,coming%20from%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Cen....

MattGaiser 6y ago

> What's stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a "national security risk"? Nothing. And it would not surprise me if Germany did it or at least put up a lot of barriers to help Volkswagen.

comoesposible 6y ago
Hence Tesla is building the Berlin Giga. It's not so much against straight out bans, but against Germany lobbying for all sorts of regulations in the EU to limit Tesla's market access. With Tesla now having a huge factory in Germany, suddenly Germany will lobby in favor of Tesla. Didn't people understand from the start that this was the primary reason why Musk chose Germany?

orbifold 6y ago

Well Tesla's sentry mode and sensor suite that is connected to the internet could actually pose a massive security risk. I wouldn't be surprised if they were banned from entering military installations and other sensitive areas, not that Germany has that many of them that aren't open to US military personnel.

castratikron 6y ago
Already happening in USA https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/171515/not-allowing-tesla-on-military-bases https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/171515/not-allowing-tesl...

comoesposible 6y ago

That's comparing apples and elephants. Also, there are already laws in Germany about how long such images may be stored and how they may be used.

fulafel 6y ago

I think a better comparison/scenario is the PI data hoovering cadre of US SM companies.

pmorici 6y ago

The understanding that the US would respond in kind by banning the import of VW Group vehicles or putting a very high tariff on them. In any case it wouldn’t be in Germany’s interest with the new Tesla factory going up there.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
What a brittle and fragile peace. If one country gets a nationalist leader in power, I'll lose access to all their goods because my leader is an idiot. Awesome

jb775 6y ago

The difference is that Tesla isn't headquartered in a communist nation that has the ability to take complete control of all business decisions. Also, Tesla doesn't have 80 million monthly active users in Germany who are young & impressionable.