5 ms·

Judge Blocks US Attempts to Ban WeChat

79 points by DarkContinent 6y ago

lettergram 6y ago
> Judge Beeler, sitting in San Francisco, noted that "while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest". I understand the presidential prerogative for national security. I also understand it’s the judges who get to check said authority. In this case it’s pretty interesting. The judge admits there is evidence, but not overwhelming so limits authority over wechat. However, we know (for a fact) China effectively forces every one of its citizens (and visitors) on wechat[1]. Honestly, the evidence is probably more solid for wechat there than other apps. Personally, I bet this wasn’t explicitly based on just evidence. Wechat is also the only way many Chinese communicate with family members back home, transfer funds, etc. I suspect it’s also the damage it’ll cause. In any case, I suspect this will be overturned as spying on communications by a foreign power IS a big security risk. Further, particularly with wechat, it seems like a way to capture communications of other people (who don’t use the app, but message people who do). [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/wechat-spying-on-foreigners/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/wechat-spying-on-foreig...
- ivalm 6y ago
  Is there evidence of wechat spying on communication from the US? I understand “it makes sense”, but I’ve never heard anything provable.
  - onelovetwo 6y ago
    The idea is even if the data itself may not be in china, an AI model is trained using that data inside the U.S. (to predict opinion and behavior) and that is sent over. Which is essentially the same as having the data. No one actually wants the data to go though it one by one, its all to train a model that extracts meaningful things from it.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Given the fact that all data in WeChat is sent to a company in China, how would we be able to get concrete evidence of it?
    - Aperocky 6y ago
      For all we know Iraq is not allowing investigator in, how would we know if they don't have WMDs? Everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
  - cbhl 6y ago
    Here are a couple of past submissions that talk about how WeChat implements moderation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20502727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20502727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20448103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20448103
  - natdempk 6y ago
    WeChat is actively censored for both Chinese-registered and non-China-registered accounts, thus implying that communication through the platform is monitored, reviewed, etc. It isn't a far leap to say those capabilities are usable for spying and it seems unlikely that they wouldn't be if an opportunity arose. You can read some thorough investigations into the extent and mechanics of the censorship here: https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ or here https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/
  - chrischen 6y ago
    Chinese people know they are being spied on. Americans think they aren’t, and our government is still trying to maintain some pretense in that department by trying to “protect” us from mass surveillance when the trend domestically is clearly moving towards that. Given Facebook messenger isn’t encrypted and Instagram DMs are known to be filtered based on content, that means facebook effectively reads and acts on private messages. The US government is just one National Security Letter away from spying on private comms. The only real protection we have isn’t this Trump administration WeChat ban... it’s end to end encryption like in iMessage or Whatsapp.
- jonathannat 6y ago
  another take: > Judge Beeler, sitting in San Francisco, noted that "while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest". A judge, in a city that is the stronghold of the party that is opposing the current administration, admits the national security threat, but thinks the threat is modest. A judge who is apparently not familiar with Chinese government threatening overseas Uighurs, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/china-threatens-uighurs-europe/596347/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/ch... and https://thehill.com/opinion/international/501008-beyond-xinjiangs-camps-china-threatens-uighurs-globally https://thehill.com/opinion/international/501008-beyond-xinj... and overseas Chinese critics https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-wray/china-coerces-hundreds-of-chinese-born-critics-in-u-s-to-return-home-fbi-chief-says-idUSKBN24825V https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-wray/china-coer.... And couldn't bother to notice the recent Chinese government's desire to control private companies https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/business/china-communist-private-business.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/business/china-communist-.... A judge who didn't bother to google before ruling on an extremely important National security issue. A judge that IMO, has overstepped her bound.
  - linkjuice4all 6y ago
    While those things are bad it seems somewhat tangential to threaten to ban an app unless the company behind it has its US offices nationalized. If the national security concerns are significant you’d expect the administration to be working with the legislature to enact laws against such behavior which they could then enforce. Why wouldn’t they want this ability to go after other bad-actors instead of using this bizarre method to target this individual?
    - jonathannat 6y ago
      I think you're thinking of tiktok. This administration just wants to ban wechat outright.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    > A judge, in a city that is the stronghold of the party that is opposing the current administration [...] How is this relevant?
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest all of Google, Facebook, Oracle, Amazon, Apple's etc. data end up with the NSA. Should Europe ban all U.S. tech companies based on that? Given the U.S. is known for "extraordinary renditions", there's reason this data will be misused.
  - izacus 6y ago
    > Should Europe ban all U.S. tech companies based on that? That is the logical next step if WeChat is considered a such a danger.
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      That's your first problem, assuming there is some sort of reciprocal logic at play here. It's simply about power - we ban things because we can, and we judge the blowback as being not as bad as the alternative.
  - djfdat 6y ago
    The ones that care probably get that data from those companies or from the NSA anyways. However, if each country actually did try to play this game the US currently is with TikTok/WeChat/China, we’d either have no global companies, or all of our data would be shared between any company and the country that requests it.
  - jonathannat 6y ago
    I don't think you understand, this is geopolitics. This is the clash of ideologies. This is democracies vs dictatorships. This is market economy vs state controlled industries. This is EU, US, Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, Taiwan, India, South Korea vs China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea. Those that say EU will side with China and go against US, don't know how geopolitics work. And haven't been paying attention to Europe standing up to China these past few weeks.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
- chrischen 6y ago
  The difference between Chinese people and Americans (with regards to social media and comms) is that they know they are being watched. The US government is being cute trying to “protect” Americans from being watched.
supernova87a 6y ago
Even if you agree that China needs to be checked in its aggressive use of technology for state purposes (which I partly agree with, but not without saying that the US is not innocent of that activity either), at least let's not be naive about it. Don't think that the banning of apps was a well-reasoned decision with careful justification about the causes, potential, solutions, and impacts on US economics and society. It was a guy asking "what can we do to create some leverage over this adversary I don't like? (and was just told about yesterday)" Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those. It's not good when government operates on a whim. The same hammer may swing against you next time, with equally poor justification, which you created support for. Don't deceive yourself about what principle (and person) you're getting behind.
- adventured 6y ago
  Uh, what? > Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those. We have been doing that. It has been widely covered by every major media outlet in the West for years, including: NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, AP, BBC, NPR, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Sky News, Bloomberg, and on it goes. There is a massive US economic blockade effort against North Korea, and the North Koreans have been flipping out about it 24/7 for years. It has been in the news non-stop for years in relation to North Korea. The US has been routinely conflicting with China about maintaining their side of the enforcement related to that effort. In fact, the US economic blockade of North Korea has caused so much damage to their country, it has prompted cannibalism inside of North Korea and at times risked mass famine. If anything the US should probably consider backing off its extreme blockade of North Korea, rather than risk pushing them into actual widespread famine, given their instability and nuclear weapons. The US has crushed the Iranian economy with its economic blockade on them, reducing oil exports by 80-90%. It sent inflation skyrocketing and prompted mass civilian revolt, which then prompted the Iranian Government to murder thousands of protestors in 2019. The US has recently come close to military conflict to enforce its economic blockade against Venezuela and its energy industry. The US economic blockade of Venezuela has destroyed their energy industry, bringing their energy exports to barely a trickle. That also has been very widely in the news. And the US has heavily sanctioned Russia, along with going very far out of its way to try to harm Russia's energy interests, eg by trying to stop Nord Stream 2. In fact the US has been borderline belligerent on that matter, coming close to pissing off its European allies in the process.
ipsin 6y ago
[Edit: Apologies, I got We Chat and Tik Tok confused...] What seems outrageous to me is that this seems like simple retribution for Tik Tok users getting one over on the president [1]. So then Tik Tok tries to find a US partner, and actively searches for a Trump-supporting company, finding a partner in Oracle [2]. This seems like a corrosive use of power, an exercise in vindictive narcissism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/trump-tulsa-rally-scheme-k-pop-fans-tiktok-users https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/trump-tulsa-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/19/21437850/president-trump-approves-oracle-tiktok-partnership-bytedance-china-ban https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/19/21437850/president-trump-...
- dis-sys 6y ago
  > This seems like a corrosive use of power, an exercise in vindictive narcissism. what you can expect from trump.
- rvz 6y ago
  > What seems outrageous to me is that this seems like simple retribution for Tik Tok users getting one over on the president [1]. We've been here before haven't we? [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/us-to-investigate-tiktok-over-national-security-concerns-sources-say.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/us-to-investigate-tiktok-ove... [1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19273614/20191009_Letter_to_Secretary_Mnuchin_re_TikTok.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19273614/2... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/technology/tiktok-national-security-review.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/technology/tiktok-nationa... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
- jowday 6y ago
  That whole narrative about people on TikTok disrupting the rally isn't true. They were giving out tickets to anyone who asked - 80k tickets were given out to a venue with a seating capacity of ~5k. At no point did they stop giving out tickets because they had reached capacity.
ivalm 6y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24534610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24534610
tus88 6y ago
Hawaii?
kingkawn 6y ago
Ban google too
- newfriend 6y ago
  China already does that..
anaganisk 6y ago
Its funny how US acts innocent while Facebook is caught everyday doing shady stuff and google literally sniffs data out of majority of Androids and both of them have connections with Military of US.
- quest88 6y ago
  You're comparing the actions of a company against the actions of a state. If the US was actively influencing facebook to show anti-lgbt, anti-blm, and anti-usa messaging then I could see the comparison better.
skybrian 6y ago
I'm wondering how principled network security between two large nations that distrust each other would even work? Let's say the US and Soviet Union on an alternate timeline. It seems like they would have separate industries for building hardware and wouldn't allow code to be shipped across the border without a security review.

79 points by DarkContinent 6y ago

> Judge Beeler, sitting in San Francisco, noted that "while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest". I understand the presidential prerogative for national security. I also understand it’s the judges who get to check said authority. In this case it’s pretty interesting. The judge admits there is evidence, but not overwhelming so limits authority over wechat. However, we know (for a fact) China effectively forces every one of its citizens (and visitors) on wechat[1]. Honestly, the evidence is probably more solid for wechat there than other apps. Personally, I bet this wasn’t explicitly based on just evidence. Wechat is also the only way many Chinese communicate with family members back home, transfer funds, etc. I suspect it’s also the damage it’ll cause. In any case, I suspect this will be overturned as spying on communications by a foreign power IS a big security risk. Further, particularly with wechat, it seems like a way to capture communications of other people (who don’t use the app, but message people who do). [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/wechat-spying-on-foreigners/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/wechat-spying-on-foreig...

ivalm 6y ago
Is there evidence of wechat spying on communication from the US? I understand “it makes sense”, but I’ve never heard anything provable.
- onelovetwo 6y ago
  The idea is even if the data itself may not be in china, an AI model is trained using that data inside the U.S. (to predict opinion and behavior) and that is sent over. Which is essentially the same as having the data. No one actually wants the data to go though it one by one, its all to train a model that extracts meaningful things from it.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Given the fact that all data in WeChat is sent to a company in China, how would we be able to get concrete evidence of it?
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    For all we know Iraq is not allowing investigator in, how would we know if they don't have WMDs? Everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
- cbhl 6y ago
  Here are a couple of past submissions that talk about how WeChat implements moderation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20502727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20502727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20448103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20448103
- natdempk 6y ago
  WeChat is actively censored for both Chinese-registered and non-China-registered accounts, thus implying that communication through the platform is monitored, reviewed, etc. It isn't a far leap to say those capabilities are usable for spying and it seems unlikely that they wouldn't be if an opportunity arose. You can read some thorough investigations into the extent and mechanics of the censorship here: https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ or here https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/
- chrischen 6y ago
  Chinese people know they are being spied on. Americans think they aren’t, and our government is still trying to maintain some pretense in that department by trying to “protect” us from mass surveillance when the trend domestically is clearly moving towards that. Given Facebook messenger isn’t encrypted and Instagram DMs are known to be filtered based on content, that means facebook effectively reads and acts on private messages. The US government is just one National Security Letter away from spying on private comms. The only real protection we have isn’t this Trump administration WeChat ban... it’s end to end encryption like in iMessage or Whatsapp.
jonathannat 6y ago
another take: > Judge Beeler, sitting in San Francisco, noted that "while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest". A judge, in a city that is the stronghold of the party that is opposing the current administration, admits the national security threat, but thinks the threat is modest. A judge who is apparently not familiar with Chinese government threatening overseas Uighurs, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/china-threatens-uighurs-europe/596347/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/ch... and https://thehill.com/opinion/international/501008-beyond-xinjiangs-camps-china-threatens-uighurs-globally https://thehill.com/opinion/international/501008-beyond-xinj... and overseas Chinese critics https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-wray/china-coerces-hundreds-of-chinese-born-critics-in-u-s-to-return-home-fbi-chief-says-idUSKBN24825V https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-wray/china-coer.... And couldn't bother to notice the recent Chinese government's desire to control private companies https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/business/china-communist-private-business.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/business/china-communist-.... A judge who didn't bother to google before ruling on an extremely important National security issue. A judge that IMO, has overstepped her bound.
- linkjuice4all 6y ago
  While those things are bad it seems somewhat tangential to threaten to ban an app unless the company behind it has its US offices nationalized. If the national security concerns are significant you’d expect the administration to be working with the legislature to enact laws against such behavior which they could then enforce. Why wouldn’t they want this ability to go after other bad-actors instead of using this bizarre method to target this individual?
  - jonathannat 6y ago
    I think you're thinking of tiktok. This administration just wants to ban wechat outright.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  > A judge, in a city that is the stronghold of the party that is opposing the current administration [...] How is this relevant?
AsyncAwait 6y ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest all of Google, Facebook, Oracle, Amazon, Apple's etc. data end up with the NSA. Should Europe ban all U.S. tech companies based on that? Given the U.S. is known for "extraordinary renditions", there's reason this data will be misused.
- izacus 6y ago
  > Should Europe ban all U.S. tech companies based on that? That is the logical next step if WeChat is considered a such a danger.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    That's your first problem, assuming there is some sort of reciprocal logic at play here. It's simply about power - we ban things because we can, and we judge the blowback as being not as bad as the alternative.
- djfdat 6y ago
  The ones that care probably get that data from those companies or from the NSA anyways. However, if each country actually did try to play this game the US currently is with TikTok/WeChat/China, we’d either have no global companies, or all of our data would be shared between any company and the country that requests it.
- jonathannat 6y ago
  I don't think you understand, this is geopolitics. This is the clash of ideologies. This is democracies vs dictatorships. This is market economy vs state controlled industries. This is EU, US, Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, Taiwan, India, South Korea vs China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea. Those that say EU will side with China and go against US, don't know how geopolitics work. And haven't been paying attention to Europe standing up to China these past few weeks.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
chrischen 6y ago
The difference between Chinese people and Americans (with regards to social media and comms) is that they know they are being watched. The US government is being cute trying to “protect” Americans from being watched.

supernova87a 6y ago

Even if you agree that China needs to be checked in its aggressive use of technology for state purposes (which I partly agree with, but not without saying that the US is not innocent of that activity either), at least let's not be naive about it. Don't think that the banning of apps was a well-reasoned decision with careful justification about the causes, potential, solutions, and impacts on US economics and society. It was a guy asking "what can we do to create some leverage over this adversary I don't like? (and was just told about yesterday)" Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those. It's not good when government operates on a whim. The same hammer may swing against you next time, with equally poor justification, which you created support for. Don't deceive yourself about what principle (and person) you're getting behind.

adventured 6y ago
Uh, what? > Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those. We have been doing that. It has been widely covered by every major media outlet in the West for years, including: NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, AP, BBC, NPR, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Sky News, Bloomberg, and on it goes. There is a massive US economic blockade effort against North Korea, and the North Koreans have been flipping out about it 24/7 for years. It has been in the news non-stop for years in relation to North Korea. The US has been routinely conflicting with China about maintaining their side of the enforcement related to that effort. In fact, the US economic blockade of North Korea has caused so much damage to their country, it has prompted cannibalism inside of North Korea and at times risked mass famine. If anything the US should probably consider backing off its extreme blockade of North Korea, rather than risk pushing them into actual widespread famine, given their instability and nuclear weapons. The US has crushed the Iranian economy with its economic blockade on them, reducing oil exports by 80-90%. It sent inflation skyrocketing and prompted mass civilian revolt, which then prompted the Iranian Government to murder thousands of protestors in 2019. The US has recently come close to military conflict to enforce its economic blockade against Venezuela and its energy industry. The US economic blockade of Venezuela has destroyed their energy industry, bringing their energy exports to barely a trickle. That also has been very widely in the news. And the US has heavily sanctioned Russia, along with going very far out of its way to try to harm Russia's energy interests, eg by trying to stop Nord Stream 2. In fact the US has been borderline belligerent on that matter, coming close to pissing off its European allies in the process.

ipsin 6y ago

[Edit: Apologies, I got We Chat and Tik Tok confused...] What seems outrageous to me is that this seems like simple retribution for Tik Tok users getting one over on the president [1]. So then Tik Tok tries to find a US partner, and actively searches for a Trump-supporting company, finding a partner in Oracle [2]. This seems like a corrosive use of power, an exercise in vindictive narcissism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/trump-tulsa-rally-scheme-k-pop-fans-tiktok-users https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/trump-tulsa-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/19/21437850/president-trump-approves-oracle-tiktok-partnership-bytedance-china-ban https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/19/21437850/president-trump-...

dis-sys 6y ago
> This seems like a corrosive use of power, an exercise in vindictive narcissism. what you can expect from trump.
rvz 6y ago
> What seems outrageous to me is that this seems like simple retribution for Tik Tok users getting one over on the president [1]. We've been here before haven't we? [0] [1] [2] [3] [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/us-to-investigate-tiktok-over-national-security-concerns-sources-say.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/us-to-investigate-tiktok-ove... [1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19273614/20191009_Letter_to_Secretary_Mnuchin_re_TikTok.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19273614/2... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/technology/tiktok-national-security-review.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/technology/tiktok-nationa... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
jowday 6y ago
That whole narrative about people on TikTok disrupting the rally isn't true. They were giving out tickets to anyone who asked - 80k tickets were given out to a venue with a seating capacity of ~5k. At no point did they stop giving out tickets because they had reached capacity.

ivalm 6y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24534610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24534610

tus88 6y ago

Hawaii?

kingkawn 6y ago

Ban google too

newfriend 6y ago
China already does that..

anaganisk 6y ago

Its funny how US acts innocent while Facebook is caught everyday doing shady stuff and google literally sniffs data out of majority of Androids and both of them have connections with Military of US.

quest88 6y ago
You're comparing the actions of a company against the actions of a state. If the US was actively influencing facebook to show anti-lgbt, anti-blm, and anti-usa messaging then I could see the comparison better.

skybrian 6y ago

I'm wondering how principled network security between two large nations that distrust each other would even work? Let's say the US and Soviet Union on an alternate timeline. It seems like they would have separate industries for building hardware and wouldn't allow code to be shipped across the border without a security review.