4 ms·

So two things should be absolutely clear here: 1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This

by cletus 6y ago

So two things should be absolutely clear here: 1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and 2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest. As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market. Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?

nxc18 6y ago
So much ignorance here. 1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago. 2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example. You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
horsemessiah 6y ago
Could the U.S. govt not subpoena a U.S. company for information, giving them the same power people are worried about China having?
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  They can, but since they have to go through the courts, the process is much more difficult and there are more opportunities for someone (like the media) to find out about it. It isn't binary, the powers would never be the same even if they sound similar.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Do the FISA courts or National Security Letters count as an open court with opportunity for the media to find out about it? What if the US State Department uses PRISM or a related program instead?
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      They are still courts. They are still presided by judges, you can't just get approval without justification or a paper trail. They still leak like crazy to the media. And again, it isn't binary. You can't say the USA and China's systems are just as bad, one is much worse than the other even if neither is perfect or even good.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        You completely ignored my second point. As for FISA court, the government is allowed to destroy the paper trail and the public is not allowed to know the justification, so it might as well not exist. Also, the NSA spying on US citizens illegally and covertly without a warrant is worse than a public Chinese courts, undeniably.
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        Your point that fisa courts, which are considered an unnecessary western luxury in the Chinese system and have restricted usage in the USA system somehow make the American system as bad as China? And then you mention PRISM, a system that takes and stores photographs of passports (for all I can find on the web, you don’t bother to provide your own links), as somehow worse or as worse as the Chinese system? No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
lucamx 6y ago
"1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world." Wait. Are you sure you mean China not the US? https://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-uses-social-media-as-a-political-diplomacy-tool-2011-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-uses-soc...

by cletus 6y ago

nxc18 6y ago

So much ignorance here. 1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago. 2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example. You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.

horsemessiah 6y ago

Could the U.S. govt not subpoena a U.S. company for information, giving them the same power people are worried about China having?

seanmcdirmid 6y ago
They can, but since they have to go through the courts, the process is much more difficult and there are more opportunities for someone (like the media) to find out about it. It isn't binary, the powers would never be the same even if they sound similar.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Do the FISA courts or National Security Letters count as an open court with opportunity for the media to find out about it? What if the US State Department uses PRISM or a related program instead?
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    They are still courts. They are still presided by judges, you can't just get approval without justification or a paper trail. They still leak like crazy to the media. And again, it isn't binary. You can't say the USA and China's systems are just as bad, one is much worse than the other even if neither is perfect or even good.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      You completely ignored my second point. As for FISA court, the government is allowed to destroy the paper trail and the public is not allowed to know the justification, so it might as well not exist. Also, the NSA spying on US citizens illegally and covertly without a warrant is worse than a public Chinese courts, undeniably.
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        Your point that fisa courts, which are considered an unnecessary western luxury in the Chinese system and have restricted usage in the USA system somehow make the American system as bad as China? And then you mention PRISM, a system that takes and stores photographs of passports (for all I can find on the web, you don’t bother to provide your own links), as somehow worse or as worse as the Chinese system? No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.

lucamx 6y ago

"1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world." Wait. Are you sure you mean China not the US? https://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-uses-social-media-as-a-political-diplomacy-tool-2011-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-hillary-clinton-uses-soc...