16 ms·

I view this as inevitable. Networking infrastructure has a valid national security interest. Companies in China are extensions of the state and tools of foreig

by cletus 5y ago

I view this as inevitable. Networking infrastructure has a valid national security interest. Companies in China are extensions of the state and tools of foreign policy. Sure these companies are notionally private but the people who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and the price for that is loyalty. I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. This goes beyond classified material and extends to China cheating on trade including, but not limited to, the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" and other means as the price Western companies pay for "access" to the Chinese market. Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't allow it to happen. They're literally giving away their secret sauce chasing a phantom. There's a reason why there are Chinese versions of every Western company you can think of that's dominant in China. Why the issue with those born in mainland China? Because China doesn't allow dual-citizenship. Those that become naturalized in the United States, for example, lose their Chinese citizenship. This then becomes a carrot the CCP can dangle in front of those wishing to return: restoration of citizenship. That is, of course, if you happen to have a particular set of knowledge or skills deemed important to China. What I believe is most needed immediately is reciprocity in trade. That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to the Chinese market (for the record, it's China's right to restrict this for whatever national interest they wish) then Chinese companies should be similarly restricted in the West.

finikytou 5y ago
why only companies in china? we know for a fact that apple or microsoft have backdoors that US government (and Israeli looking at this year events) can leverage to enact pretty much what they deem as natitonal interest
- cletus 5y ago
  You're going to have to clarify what you're talking about. These claims I've tended to find actually confuse several issues and misconstrue reality, intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the US has the FISA courts with all that entails (eg National Security Letters, pen registers). There is a legal framework for this whether you like it or not. My personal view is that the whole FISA system is overreach open to abuse that lacks transparency. But at least Federal judges are still involved in the process. Or are you talking about something else? Something extrajudicial perhaps? For example, countries (including the US) use allied intelligence agencies as an end run around their own laws. The NSA has certain restrictions on spying on US citizens that, say, Germany or Israel do not. So the NSA can get counterparts to do their dirty work and in turn the NSA does their dirty work. Is that what you mean? If so, what's the relevance here? If not, then what?
  - thefounder 5y ago
    I think you've been away in the last 10-15 years.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Either that or part of the same PsyOp groups in Israel that frequently try to discredit anything negative about their country.
  - _jal 5y ago
    Oddly, you're trying to challenge a claim about covert technical intelligence mechanisms with descriptions of legal mechanisms governing surveillance. That's like responding to complaints about trespassing with the legal code governing rentals. In any case, we do have examples of exactly what the gp is talking about. For instance, this one, which subsequently backfired: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-02/juniper-mystery-attacks-traced-to-pentagon-role-and-chinese-hackers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-02/juniper-m...
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    > The NSA has certain restrictions on spying on US citizens that, say, Germany or Israel do not. So the NSA can get counterparts to do their dirty work and in turn the NSA does their dirty work. The Snowden revelations made it clear that those regulations are toothless, unenforced, and effectively just propaganda.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fvdessen 5y ago
  Seems like if you are neither in China or the US you are now some kind of third world citizen and must choose which of the above can monitor your communications
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Well, you can buy from European companies like Ericsson if you want to avoid the US and China. Really though, it might be worth bringing your complaints to the European Parliament, which has allowed the EU's tech sector to stagnate almost to the point of irrelevance.
Dah00n 5y ago
>China cheating on trade including, but not limited to, the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" This sounds almost like it was taken from a political sound-bite. In reality the US have forced the hand of other countries through diplomacy, sanctions, war, etc. to a far higher degree than China (at least so far) if nothing else than because of a longer history of being in a position to do so. It is pure politics and have little or no base in actual reality of the hardware made by the companies mentioned in the articles or Chinese behaviour towards Western businesses. This is just Us Versus Them. The US have no high road to take here at all and I'm surprised HN seems to believe this has anything to do with China cheating, stealing IPs or whatever they newest accusation is when in reality it should be clear as day to anyone that it is simply the US trying to remain top-dog and force its way on others and nothing else. If China didn't do as they do it would just be some other accusations.
- enkid 5y ago
  The US wants IP laws so it can protect it's innovation. The rest of the Western world agrees. The US is also more likely to maintain human rights, which China absolutely does not care about. I would much rather the US be top dog than China, even though it has plenty of issues and has made mistakes.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Go to a prison in the Midwest and ask prisoners about their human rights. The US is full of abuse, but the wealthy are really good at pretending it doesn't exist and the poor are so busy fighting with the middle class that they don't have the time or money to do anything about it.
    - km3r 5y ago
      No one's is claiming the US is anywhere near perfect, but the question is do we let China win or the US. And if that question doesn't have an obvious answer to you, you just haven't been paying attention. We have more freedom, more rights, and aren't actively genociding minority populations. We have our flaws, and we absolutely should strive to be better, but I would much rather be under American rule than China.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
There's a huge amount of false "conventional wisdom" here. > Sure these companies are notionally private but the people who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and the price for that is loyalty. The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China in the way you're implying. The government could theoretically exert pressure on companies for various reasons, but that's not at all unique to China. How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? > the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" First of all, these partnerships were not theft. Be careful about making these sorts of accusations. China made a pretty simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some amount of technology to a local partner. I don't actually see anything immoral with this. It's a fair trade. Second of all, these requirements for local partnerships have been phased out over time, and are limited now to certain sectors. For example, Tesla wholly owns its operations in China. > Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't allow it to happen. Western companies have been "winning" in China for decades. Not only have they been able to exploit cheap labor, but they have conquered many sectors of China's internal market. VWs are ubiquitous in China, and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China. China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Qualcomm gets 2/3 of its revenue from China. I could go on, but you get the point. > That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to the Chinese market American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds.
- cletus 5y ago
  > The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China This is a straw man argument. No one accused China of micro-managing companies. It's never that overt. For example of how this works in the real world, look at Vladimir Putin in Russia and the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky [1]. He was, at the time, one of the most richest and powerful oligarchs in Russia. By imprisoning him, Putin sent the message that no other oligarch was safe and if they wanted to continue to exist they had to fall in line, which they did. > How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? I'll assume good intent here and that this isn't simply "butwhataboutism". US companies need to obey US laws of course. This includes, for example, the FISA court nonsense. You can argue that Chinese companies are simply following Chinese law. While that's technically true, it's a question of degree. US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. > First of all, these partnerships were not theft. I beg to differ. For example, look at the case of ASMC and Sinovel [2]. > ... and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China Now to much this year [3]. > China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Yes, because China currently cannot make commercial aircraft at scale to compete with Boeing and Airbus. I guarantee you that's a problem they're working on and they're going to be aided by the boards of both companies giving away the keys to the kingdom for access to that market. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel-theft-conviction/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/i...
coliveira 5y ago
The US exerts a lot of pressure on US companies for geopolitical reasons, so this puts them in the same level as the Chinese government. Everybody knows that the US compiles "avoid-lists" of countries they want to attack, and companies have to comply or suffer huge penalties. This absurd push to remove Chinese products from the market is just the latest example.
- cletus 5y ago
  I see a lot of this on this topic. It's the fallacy of false equivalence. For example, the United States clearly has dark stains in its history. Slavery obviously, Japanese interment in WW2, the treatment of Native Americans (eg Trail of Tears), segregation, etc. And these are all raised as counterpoints when criticizing China for human rights abuses. But here's the difference. You can't end up in prison of a "re-education" camp in the US for discussing any of these. Now compare that to China's treatment of political "dissidents", the treatment of the Uighurs, Tibet, the Tiannemen Square massacre and the censorship of these and other issues. So no, they're not equivalent. It's the same for "pressure" on US companies. It's a question of degree. The US has courts that can check the power of executive or legislative overreach. US companies can (and have) resisted the US governments efforts within these legal frameworks. Twitter and Facebook, both US companies, removed a sitting US president from their platforms after excessive policy violations (and justifiably so) so whatever "geopolitical pressure" you imagine, it's simply less in the US.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    I don't think a contest of who is the worse human-rights abuser brings much, but recall that the US: * Occupied Afghanistan for 20 years, and its last act there was to drone strike an aid worker and his family. * Invaded Iraq based on false claims of WMD, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. * Helped overthrow the government of Libya, plunging the country into a decade of chaos. I'm not going to defend China's actions (though I would push back against some of the absurd exaggerations that are often made), but some perspective is needed here.
    - 5y ago
nnm 5y ago
Can't believe a comment that openly discriminated China-born US citizens is now a top comment. The whole logic behind the argument (around China-born US citizens) is so weak.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- post_from_work 5y ago
  Previous cases of naturalized Chinese-Americans being indicted for espionage/IP theft/national security-related crimes: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-and-charged-grant-fraud https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-an... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-navy-officer-his-wife-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-conspiring-smuggle-military-style https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-navy-officer-his-wife-and-... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-cia-case-officer-charged-conspiracy-commit-espionage-and-retention-national-defense https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-cia-case-officer-charg... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3104566/china-born-us-citizen-charged-over-alleged-theft-american https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3104566/ch... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-citizen-charged-with-spying-for-china-after-sting-operation/2019/09/30/bee1228a-e3c5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-citizen-...
  - yibg 5y ago
    Isn't citing some example cases pretty poor argument in this case? There are lots of examples of muslim terrorists, so we should just ban all muslims? There are examples of Mexican criminals, so we should just ban all Mexicans? Edit: Not to mention the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
    - science4sail 5y ago
      The internment of Japanese Americans is actually a pretty good example. As far as the outcome of events is concerned, it doesn't matter whether any of them actually were traitors (as far as I know there were no significant cases), it only matters whether they were depicted as traitors by politicians eager to stoke public xenophobia.
jacquesm 5y ago
Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western" and the other way around and not much of meaning or value would be lost. It's the rest of the world that's really up the creek without a paddle in this respect, they have no options other than to side with either behemoth and hope for the best.
- seneca 5y ago
  > Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western" and the other way around and not much of meaning or value would be lost. This is nonsense, and basically textbook whataboutism. Companies in the US are not an extension of the state in anyway near the way Chinese firms are, even if some collude. The US allows dual citizenship.
  - babesh 5y ago
    How do you think the US government gets access to Internet and phone traffic? The exchanges give the US government direct access including letting the government install their own equipment.
    - adventured 5y ago
      The parent comment is quite obviously correct. The US Internet isn't just some large exchanges. It consists of many tens of thousands of services/companies/sites with private data exchanged over TLS. The US Government does not control those services/sites; in China it directly controls all of it, top to bottom and without exception. Does the US Government control GitHub? Imgur? Do they have monitors implanted at the organizations to control them? Do you know why there was so much anti-Trump content on services like Imgur, Reddit or Twitter, during those administration years? It's precisely because the US Government does not control such services, and fortunately it's an area of real freedom that the US still largely excels at. In the US I can set up a file/media hosting service tomorrow morning, with zero oversight by the US Government. I can make it a politically focused service for the left or right as I see fit. I can blast Biden 24/7 via the service, hosting media that is anti his administration, or focus that against Republicans instead. Or I can set up an encrypted data service, where you can post encrypted files, text notes, whatever. I can do that any time I see fit, the US Government has nothing to do with it. Try that in China and see what happens to you. Those are intentionally simple examples to make a point. You can do none of that in China, starting from step one of just setting up an open file hosting service that can take in almost any content you want it to (outside of things like CP). The US Government does not control the US Internet other than with some quite basic regulations. In China, the CCP now directly controls all relevant corporations, all Internet services, anything that matters whatsoever.
paul7986 5y ago
I'm glad to see with the changing of the US guard that we still remain hard on China (tariffs). We need to stop manufacturing all/any products there... move them to the US or other countries who are not an enemy to the world. Propping up China's economy is going to only further hurt every other country on the globe besides just the U.S. They have caused the world a lot of pain already and will continue to do so as the world continues to juice their economy! Their people have been wearing masks since early 2000s ... now their pain in that regards has spread across the world! Didn't Covid originate in China?
didntknowya 5y ago
everyone keeps saying loyalty like people sign blood pacts with the CCP or something. it's no different from companies abiding by US laws (and provide backdoors etc) in order to stay operating. it's not loyalty or some secret pact. it's just them acting in their best interest to follow regulations (however dubious) in order to keep making money.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  The difference is in the structuring of the 'law' and government, which are very different between those countries. I put 'law' in quotations because from my perspective, US citizen, CCP's form of government doesn't work within anything similar to a framework of democracy, rights, and founding principles like the US.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  While it may not be a literal blood pact with the government, there have been numerous accounts of Chinese (ex)-citizens being coerced into taking actions under the threat of harm to their family and relatives that remain on the main-land. Blood pact is a poor choice of wording, but not too far off from the reality. Perhaps blood-line persuasion is better?
cwkoss 5y ago
The concept of intellectual property theft was invented by the intellectual property lobby. Ideas should be free. Attempts to inhibit the freedom of information are sisyphean futility, inevitably doomed just like the endless War on Drugs.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  Of course, then the flow of information should be bidirectional.
- nonethewiser 5y ago
  What's your bank account number?
temp8964 5y ago
> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. I think this kind of policy is already in practice, maybe not in the federal government but in some highly sensitive private business. I heard, forgot the source, business like Lockheed martin has secret programs won’t hire you if your parents are born in mainland China. I found it reasonable, because the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things.
- oingoboingothro 5y ago
  It need not be a policy to be applied in practice at the governmental level. Writing things down is FOIA bait both on the USG side and the prime side (which your Lockheed scenario is a good example of, actually, despite your distinguishing of the two environments). Primes and feds are able to communicate about matters like this without communicating, and do it routinely. Source: Need to know.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  It's a sign of the times that the top comment here seems to be tacitly endorsing discrimination against Chinese Americans, and the top reply is explicitly doing so.
  - oyashirochama 5y ago
    It's literally a requirement for TS/SCI clearance due to conflict of interest and national security. Natural born citizenship and they look at relationships fairly deeply. Even higher requirements can be needed for these positions too.
    - _yo2u 5y ago
      For security clearances, country of birth is not a direct factor. SEAD 4 is used as an adjudication guideline and uses a holistic approach towards clearance suitability determination. For every risk factor, SEAD 4 outlines possible mitigation factors. There are plenty of naturalized citizens (yes incl. from high-risk countries) working in IC, DoD, DoE.
Robotbeat 5y ago
>> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. For top secret programs, maybe that makes sense, but if you’re thinking it should apply to any science/engineering areas with broad national interest/security applicability, it’s not a good idea at all. First, besides the moral implications (handled by others), there’s the fact that it preemptively disarms the US of one of its greatest strengths: the ability to brain drain other countries of their top talent and add it to its own. How did we do the Manhattan Project? By taking in all the scientists fleeing Germany and about-to-be-occupied mainland Europe (and after that, Operation Paperclip gave us a leg up in the Cold War). This would be a massive self-own, and it’s not worth it just because it might somewhat reduce industrial espionage a bit. What we should do is give every STEM graduate school graduate in good standing from other countries full status and ideally a job. Having a Chinese grad student as an asset on a science project is practically a meme, and China is indeed a huge labor pool from which we can cherry pick the best and the brightest. It makes no sense for us to educate their elites and then force them to go home even when they want to stay and become Americans. And if blackmailing families back home becomes an issue or real fear, then the State Department should do something about it. We’re not powerless here. Having seen how the actions driven by fear of industrial/national espionage can often be far worse than the industrial/national espionage ever would’ve been, I’m wary of taking measures that would directly mitigate our greatest strengths. Let’s lean into the whole “Statue of Liberty” Nation of Immigrants mythology, and build on it. It is our strength and it’d be foolish to give it up due to fear that China will copy our stuff. I mean, they’re going to do that anyway, even if we put Chinese background people in internment camps. Our only chance is winning based on speed of innovation (which can’t happen if we spend all our resources on paranoia… paranoia has a MASSIVE overhead and slows innovation to a crawl… no one can steal our inventions if we stop inventing stuff!) and the cultural victory of acting like the good guys and being the city on the hill. Remember, this is a game we now have to play by convincing people to like us and be our allies. We are no longer the unchallenged hegemon like in the 90s; we need our allies.
- aliyfarah 5y ago
  > And if blackmailing families back home becomes an issue or real fear Threats of blackmail against families have long been a reality and a key tool the CCP uses against overseas students and businessmen. There are 8bn people in the world, US can definitely afford to pay close scrutiny to Chinese citizens, they don’t hold a monopoly on skilled labor. > Our only chance is winning based on speed of innovation Advantage of speed in innovation is rendered useless when the Chinese just sit & wait while you spend billions on r&d only to steal all your IP when your ready to launch your product.
SkyMarshal 5y ago
I agree that Western companies operating in China are chasing a phantom carrot that the CCP will never allow them to catch, and that reciprocity, or "equalization" as I think of it, is necessary in trade. If Western companies can only operate in China via 50/50 partnership and technology transfer requirements, then the same should apply to Chinese companies in the West. If Western social media companies are banned in China, then Chinese social media companies should have whatever restrictions are constitutionally possible in the West, with a caveat [1]. Etc. That said, I think Western governments need to realize that their Chinese citizens are going to be put under pressure by the CCP as you said, but to presume innocence and err on the side of protecting them. The CCP will use both carrot and stick to coerce ethnic Chinese back to China, or to enlist them in espionage operations. Western governments need to develop strategies to counter that, to ensure their Chinese citizens remain safe and welcomed in their adopted homelands, and that they can safely reject CCP coercion and be protected by their adopted homelands' governments [2]. Some spies and agents will of course slip through the cracks, but Western governments can deal with those as they happen. Better to protect the majority of innocent Chinese who emigrated to the West for a better life, than to implicitly criminalize them all. The latter would play right into the CCP's hands. [1]: The 1st Ammendment may make banning social media companies impossible. It's also possible that allowing Chinese social media companies in the West is still a net gain for spreading the ideals of free speech and anti-censorship. [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28333148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28333148
- jen20 5y ago
  > The 1st Ammendment may make banning social media companies impossible. It's also possible that allowing Chinese social media companies in the West The "west" does not consist solely of the USA. Not even most of North America has first amendment protections, and Europe most certainly does not. Further it's not obvious that "freedom of speech" is even a defence if the US government has decided you shouldn't exist - look at Mega or The Pirate Bay for examples to the contrary.
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    > Not even most of North America has first amendment protections, and Europe most certainly does not. Freedom of Expression and Assembly are Article 11 and 12 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has had legal force since 2009: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... > look at Mega or The Pirate Bay for examples to the contrary. I personally don't consider those to be examples 1st Amendment violations. It's almost all people claiming an entitlement to free entertainment, nothing more. Copyright law may be broken in the digital age, and manipulated by private interests at the expense of the public domain, and deserve reform, or maybe even civil disobedience. But nothing about that situation prevents anyone from making and posting media critiquing the government, or of generating political support for reform, and running on a platform promising to enact that reform. That's what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect above all.
ipaddr 5y ago
Wouldn't you have to worry about anyone who had strong family ties regardless of birth?
suriyaG 5y ago
As a complete aside. What is it that China offers that is making so many western companies go and do business in China? If it is cheap labour then India has it as well. I feel like I'm missing something, but not sure what. Can someone ELI5 please?
- bulletsvshumans 5y ago
  For manufacturing, a large portion of existing supply chains already exist within China, so even if it's not the cheapest, it's practical to set up your factory closer to where all your input components are manufactured.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > What is it that China offers that is making so many western companies go and do business in China? If it is cheap labour then India has it as well. I feel like I'm missing something, but not sure what. Can someone ELI5 please? It's not just cheap labor, a robust supply chain, etc. Those are definitely factors, but today, a lot of companies invest (or remain invested) in China because it significantly helps them access the Chinese domestic consumer market. India, of course, has a huge population too, but China's consumer market is a lot more developed and therefore attractive.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    I think that being an authoritarian country, where you don't expect surprises in every election was a strong incentive for american companies to invest in China instead of India. Of course, the idea that a country that doesn't give a damn about human rights would also not be completely invested in the protection of IP never was a an idea too advanced for the simple minds of the Jack Welchs eager to exploit cheap chinese manpower.
- cletus 5y ago
  So there are four major draws to China for Western companies: 1. It's a market of >1B people, hundreds of millions of whom are rapidly developing disposable income. That in itself is probably enough; 2. Cheap labour; 3. Supplier proximity; and 4. Political stability I can't stress how important (3) is. The net effect of all this is there's a network effect of suppliers in China. Those phones that are made in, say, Shenzhen require parts that are made by a factory down the road. This could be everything from chips to tiny screws. Anywhere else and you'd need to ship various parts from China and have the supply chains and inventory management that that entails. If you look past the fact that worker conditions are Dystopian, it's quite a wonder of the modern world, really. But when I (and I'm sure others) talk about the perils of kowtowing to China, it's because they want the market not the manufacturing capacity. Think of a movie studio that wants to distribute content in China. To get permission to do so that content has to be acceptable to the CCP. Many suspect this is why the movie "First Man" had no scene of planting the American flag in lunar soil (an iconic historical moment). Some pseudo-artistic defenses have been unenthusiastically lobbed on this issue. Personally I find these unconvincing at best. Western companies willingly engaging in self-censorship (or even the credible allegation of such) to pander to a foreign totalitarian government is not something I, personally, approve of.
hulitu 5y ago
Cisco has so many backdoors that they can not be there unintentional. Also an extension of national policy.
throwaway4good 5y ago
The deep racism of this comment is thinly disguised. Would you dare to write a similar slant about muslims or jews? Very sad to see this comment voted to the top of hn.
- AndyMcConachie 5y ago
  American policy towards China only makes sense if you're racist. So any discussion justifying American policy towards China will inevitably be deeply racist. It's almost as if imperialism and racism have some deeply intertwined correlative history ...
  - dragonelite 5y ago
    The whole of western policy toward Asia is rooted in white supremacy. Just like AUKUS how the Anglo nations think they should dictate too Asia what needs to be done. Hell two of the three parties are half a world away not even part of the region. Only a coalition based in western white supremacy can thinks of a idea like AUKUS as a good idea. They didn't even collaborate with their QUAD allies or with ASEAN allies. So Indonesia and Malaysia we will park some nuclear subs in your sea lanes of communication, don't care what you brown people think about it.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > American policy towards China only makes sense if you're racist Would you say the same for American policy towards Russia?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hef19898 5y ago
Way back I interned at Nokia-Siemens-Networks, before they were sold to Nokia. I wondered two things: How do these people think they can compete with the Chinese? And why is the EU giving all the orders to the Chinese? Still not sure what the answers are, but I'd really like to have "local" suppliers for critical infrastructure and hardware.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The CCP is requiring Chinese banks to fund Huawei customers with extremely cheap financing terms. So HW competes on their own terms - and apparently they are a good 'one stop shop' combined with the Chinese mentality of 'always saying yest to everything' - but then you add in hugely generous 'no money down' financing provided by entities acting in concert with foreign policy, and you have something awesome. BT can rollout a massive new network while paying for it much later. Arguably, this sort of financing should be regarded as a trade violation. There's nothing wrong with Chinese banks offering those terms, but when it's coordinated/mandated by the government, and, the Central Bank is politicized for this reason, it's a form of economic dumping.
OneTimePetes 5y ago
>Why the issue with those born in mainland China? Because China doesn't allow dual-citizenship. Those that become naturalized in the United States, for example, lose their Chinese citizenship. This then becomes a carrot the CCP can dangle in front of those wishing to return: restoration of citizenship. That is, of course, if you happen to have a particular set of knowledge or skills deemed important to China. The main issue is not this. Born in mainland means your family lifes there and can be used as hostages or coercion bargaining chips. The bureaucracy and "rules&laws" are just decoration, for something that is more resembling of a mob-extortion racket by the CCP. Not mentioning this, is repackaging what is done by these hostages as a "choice" on their side. They have no choice, never had, they live at gunpoint since birth.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Of course, you could say exactly the same about the USA... And Huawei do offer the best kit on the market at the moment, with no actual evidence of security flaws...
techie128 5y ago
Disclaimer: I am neither a supporter of China or CCP. I have my own thoughts on them but they're besides the point for now. I don't mean to attack you but your post reeks of American exceptionalism and elitism. Allow me to explain: Your post is based on an underlying assumption that 'Western companies' lose because CCP / China creates a very uneven playing field. Thats the only reason in your mind that Western companies lose. This is not true. Western companies have lost in foreign markets due to variety of reasons not the least of which is a hostile local government. The Chinese government's job is to ensure a level playing field for everybody and regulate its market in its own best interests not foreign interests. They're doing exactly what the US government and other Western countries have been doing for a long time. In fact Western companies and countries have had a long head start and several factors in their favor historically. Some that come to my mind are investment capital availability, ability to take on more debt due to different regulatory policies in domiciled country, US government's ability to impose trade sanctions, tariffs, favorable currency exchange rates, etc. Traditionally the US (and other western countries, Europe included) have used various tactics to gain advantage in foreign markets. When the host government is weak, they have typically won. However in markets such as China (and India to an extent), the local government has created effective competitors that have crushed foreign rivals in some situations. In others their western counterparts have flourished. For example, Coke, Tesla and various companies have done really well as opposed to Google, Uber, etc. One of the greatest reasons Western companies have failed in markets such as China (and India) is because they enter it with an air of arrogance. They assume the market works in the same way as the rest of the world. Let me cite an example from India which arguably is more open at welcoming Western goods and services than China. When Dominoes first entered the Indian market, they sold the same pizzas that they sold in the US. Sure, the average Indian consumer would love to eat at Dominoes because of the brand value. However they got 2 things terribly wrong which caused them to wind down operations. First, the pizzas tasted like crap to the average Indian consumer. Even though they had money to spend, American Pizza recipes do not jive well with Indian taste buds. Second, the pricing was all wrong. The Indian market was price sensitive. Nobody was willing to pay for a crappy tasting pizza (to the Indian taste buds) when there were so many other local foods that could be had for lesser price. It wasn't a question of affordability, Dominos simply did not provide enough value for the customer. They eventually failed. Learned from their mistakes, relaunched with better pricing and Indianized their pizza offerings. They're doing pretty well now. Had they done their research well they wouldn't have made the mistake. In case of Dominos they were able to relaunch after taking massive losses. However, many others choose to exit the market. In this specific instance it wasn't the government, but the company's fault for launch such a crappy product at the wrong price.
anovikov 5y ago
CCP sees all ethnic Chinese as their subjects regardless of where they were born...
murbard2 5y ago
> There's a reason why there are Chinese versions of every Western company you can think of that's dominant in China. Luxury brands, e.g. LVMH, seem like a notable exception. If part of the value prop for the product is that it's being made by a fancy, long-established, foreign company, it's inherently hard to replicate.
- speed_spread 5y ago
  I doubt that LVMH products are as hard to replicate as technology. People who pay for luxury goods do not care for the product itself but for the prestige it carries. The products LVMH sells are proof of social standing, which are the final token in a chain of trust that would also include LVMH retail stores in which one can be publically verified to be actually shopping and buying - the elite wouldn't be caught dead in a mall selling counterfeit products.

by cletus 5y ago

finikytou 5y ago

why only companies in china? we know for a fact that apple or microsoft have backdoors that US government (and Israeli looking at this year events) can leverage to enact pretty much what they deem as natitonal interest

cletus 5y ago
You're going to have to clarify what you're talking about. These claims I've tended to find actually confuse several issues and misconstrue reality, intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the US has the FISA courts with all that entails (eg National Security Letters, pen registers). There is a legal framework for this whether you like it or not. My personal view is that the whole FISA system is overreach open to abuse that lacks transparency. But at least Federal judges are still involved in the process. Or are you talking about something else? Something extrajudicial perhaps? For example, countries (including the US) use allied intelligence agencies as an end run around their own laws. The NSA has certain restrictions on spying on US citizens that, say, Germany or Israel do not. So the NSA can get counterparts to do their dirty work and in turn the NSA does their dirty work. Is that what you mean? If so, what's the relevance here? If not, then what?
- thefounder 5y ago
  I think you've been away in the last 10-15 years.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Either that or part of the same PsyOp groups in Israel that frequently try to discredit anything negative about their country.
- _jal 5y ago
  Oddly, you're trying to challenge a claim about covert technical intelligence mechanisms with descriptions of legal mechanisms governing surveillance. That's like responding to complaints about trespassing with the legal code governing rentals. In any case, we do have examples of exactly what the gp is talking about. For instance, this one, which subsequently backfired: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-02/juniper-mystery-attacks-traced-to-pentagon-role-and-chinese-hackers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-02/juniper-m...
- cwkoss 5y ago
  > The NSA has certain restrictions on spying on US citizens that, say, Germany or Israel do not. So the NSA can get counterparts to do their dirty work and in turn the NSA does their dirty work. The Snowden revelations made it clear that those regulations are toothless, unenforced, and effectively just propaganda.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fvdessen 5y ago
Seems like if you are neither in China or the US you are now some kind of third world citizen and must choose which of the above can monitor your communications
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Well, you can buy from European companies like Ericsson if you want to avoid the US and China. Really though, it might be worth bringing your complaints to the European Parliament, which has allowed the EU's tech sector to stagnate almost to the point of irrelevance.

Dah00n 5y ago

>China cheating on trade including, but not limited to, the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" This sounds almost like it was taken from a political sound-bite. In reality the US have forced the hand of other countries through diplomacy, sanctions, war, etc. to a far higher degree than China (at least so far) if nothing else than because of a longer history of being in a position to do so. It is pure politics and have little or no base in actual reality of the hardware made by the companies mentioned in the articles or Chinese behaviour towards Western businesses. This is just Us Versus Them. The US have no high road to take here at all and I'm surprised HN seems to believe this has anything to do with China cheating, stealing IPs or whatever they newest accusation is when in reality it should be clear as day to anyone that it is simply the US trying to remain top-dog and force its way on others and nothing else. If China didn't do as they do it would just be some other accusations.

enkid 5y ago
The US wants IP laws so it can protect it's innovation. The rest of the Western world agrees. The US is also more likely to maintain human rights, which China absolutely does not care about. I would much rather the US be top dog than China, even though it has plenty of issues and has made mistakes.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Go to a prison in the Midwest and ask prisoners about their human rights. The US is full of abuse, but the wealthy are really good at pretending it doesn't exist and the poor are so busy fighting with the middle class that they don't have the time or money to do anything about it.
  - km3r 5y ago
    No one's is claiming the US is anywhere near perfect, but the question is do we let China win or the US. And if that question doesn't have an obvious answer to you, you just haven't been paying attention. We have more freedom, more rights, and aren't actively genociding minority populations. We have our flaws, and we absolutely should strive to be better, but I would much rather be under American rule than China.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

There's a huge amount of false "conventional wisdom" here. > Sure these companies are notionally private but the people who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and the price for that is loyalty. The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China in the way you're implying. The government could theoretically exert pressure on companies for various reasons, but that's not at all unique to China. How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? > the wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" First of all, these partnerships were not theft. Be careful about making these sorts of accusations. China made a pretty simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some amount of technology to a local partner. I don't actually see anything immoral with this. It's a fair trade. Second of all, these requirements for local partnerships have been phased out over time, and are limited now to certain sectors. For example, Tesla wholly owns its operations in China. > Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't allow it to happen. Western companies have been "winning" in China for decades. Not only have they been able to exploit cheap labor, but they have conquered many sectors of China's internal market. VWs are ubiquitous in China, and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China. China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Qualcomm gets 2/3 of its revenue from China. I could go on, but you get the point. > That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to the Chinese market American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds.

cletus 5y ago
> The government does not by any means micromanage or control even a tiny fraction of companies in China This is a straw man argument. No one accused China of micro-managing companies. It's never that overt. For example of how this works in the real world, look at Vladimir Putin in Russia and the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky [1]. He was, at the time, one of the most richest and powerful oligarchs in Russia. By imprisoning him, Putin sent the message that no other oligarch was safe and if they wanted to continue to exist they had to fall in line, which they did. > How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US government? I'll assume good intent here and that this isn't simply "butwhataboutism". US companies need to obey US laws of course. This includes, for example, the FISA court nonsense. You can argue that Chinese companies are simply following Chinese law. While that's technically true, it's a question of degree. US companies are more independent from the US government than Chinese companies are from the Chinese government. > First of all, these partnerships were not theft. I beg to differ. For example, look at the case of ASMC and Sinovel [2]. > ... and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car manufacturer in China Now to much this year [3]. > China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Yes, because China currently cannot make commercial aircraft at scale to compete with Boeing and Airbus. I guarantee you that's a problem they're working on and they're going to be aided by the boards of both companies giving away the keys to the kingdom for access to that market. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel-theft-conviction/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-sinovel... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-sales/i...

coliveira 5y ago

The US exerts a lot of pressure on US companies for geopolitical reasons, so this puts them in the same level as the Chinese government. Everybody knows that the US compiles "avoid-lists" of countries they want to attack, and companies have to comply or suffer huge penalties. This absurd push to remove Chinese products from the market is just the latest example.

cletus 5y ago
I see a lot of this on this topic. It's the fallacy of false equivalence. For example, the United States clearly has dark stains in its history. Slavery obviously, Japanese interment in WW2, the treatment of Native Americans (eg Trail of Tears), segregation, etc. And these are all raised as counterpoints when criticizing China for human rights abuses. But here's the difference. You can't end up in prison of a "re-education" camp in the US for discussing any of these. Now compare that to China's treatment of political "dissidents", the treatment of the Uighurs, Tibet, the Tiannemen Square massacre and the censorship of these and other issues. So no, they're not equivalent. It's the same for "pressure" on US companies. It's a question of degree. The US has courts that can check the power of executive or legislative overreach. US companies can (and have) resisted the US governments efforts within these legal frameworks. Twitter and Facebook, both US companies, removed a sitting US president from their platforms after excessive policy violations (and justifiably so) so whatever "geopolitical pressure" you imagine, it's simply less in the US.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I don't think a contest of who is the worse human-rights abuser brings much, but recall that the US: * Occupied Afghanistan for 20 years, and its last act there was to drone strike an aid worker and his family. * Invaded Iraq based on false claims of WMD, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. * Helped overthrow the government of Libya, plunging the country into a decade of chaos. I'm not going to defend China's actions (though I would push back against some of the absurd exaggerations that are often made), but some perspective is needed here.
  - 5y ago

nnm 5y ago

Can't believe a comment that openly discriminated China-born US citizens is now a top comment. The whole logic behind the argument (around China-born US citizens) is so weak.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
post_from_work 5y ago
Previous cases of naturalized Chinese-Americans being indicted for espionage/IP theft/national security-related crimes: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-and-charged-grant-fraud https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/mit-professor-arrested-an... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-navy-officer-his-wife-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-conspiring-smuggle-military-style https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-navy-officer-his-wife-and-... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-cia-case-officer-charged-conspiracy-commit-espionage-and-retention-national-defense https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-cia-case-officer-charg... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3104566/china-born-us-citizen-charged-over-alleged-theft-american https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3104566/ch... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-citizen-charged-with-spying-for-china-after-sting-operation/2019/09/30/bee1228a-e3c5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-citizen-...
- yibg 5y ago
  Isn't citing some example cases pretty poor argument in this case? There are lots of examples of muslim terrorists, so we should just ban all muslims? There are examples of Mexican criminals, so we should just ban all Mexicans? Edit: Not to mention the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.
  - science4sail 5y ago
    The internment of Japanese Americans is actually a pretty good example. As far as the outcome of events is concerned, it doesn't matter whether any of them actually were traitors (as far as I know there were no significant cases), it only matters whether they were depicted as traitors by politicians eager to stoke public xenophobia.

jacquesm 5y ago

Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western" and the other way around and not much of meaning or value would be lost. It's the rest of the world that's really up the creek without a paddle in this respect, they have no options other than to side with either behemoth and hope for the best.

seneca 5y ago
> Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western" and the other way around and not much of meaning or value would be lost. This is nonsense, and basically textbook whataboutism. Companies in the US are not an extension of the state in anyway near the way Chinese firms are, even if some collude. The US allows dual citizenship.
- babesh 5y ago
  How do you think the US government gets access to Internet and phone traffic? The exchanges give the US government direct access including letting the government install their own equipment.
  - adventured 5y ago
    The parent comment is quite obviously correct. The US Internet isn't just some large exchanges. It consists of many tens of thousands of services/companies/sites with private data exchanged over TLS. The US Government does not control those services/sites; in China it directly controls all of it, top to bottom and without exception. Does the US Government control GitHub? Imgur? Do they have monitors implanted at the organizations to control them? Do you know why there was so much anti-Trump content on services like Imgur, Reddit or Twitter, during those administration years? It's precisely because the US Government does not control such services, and fortunately it's an area of real freedom that the US still largely excels at. In the US I can set up a file/media hosting service tomorrow morning, with zero oversight by the US Government. I can make it a politically focused service for the left or right as I see fit. I can blast Biden 24/7 via the service, hosting media that is anti his administration, or focus that against Republicans instead. Or I can set up an encrypted data service, where you can post encrypted files, text notes, whatever. I can do that any time I see fit, the US Government has nothing to do with it. Try that in China and see what happens to you. Those are intentionally simple examples to make a point. You can do none of that in China, starting from step one of just setting up an open file hosting service that can take in almost any content you want it to (outside of things like CP). The US Government does not control the US Internet other than with some quite basic regulations. In China, the CCP now directly controls all relevant corporations, all Internet services, anything that matters whatsoever.

paul7986 5y ago

I'm glad to see with the changing of the US guard that we still remain hard on China (tariffs). We need to stop manufacturing all/any products there... move them to the US or other countries who are not an enemy to the world. Propping up China's economy is going to only further hurt every other country on the globe besides just the U.S. They have caused the world a lot of pain already and will continue to do so as the world continues to juice their economy! Their people have been wearing masks since early 2000s ... now their pain in that regards has spread across the world! Didn't Covid originate in China?

didntknowya 5y ago

everyone keeps saying loyalty like people sign blood pacts with the CCP or something. it's no different from companies abiding by US laws (and provide backdoors etc) in order to stay operating. it's not loyalty or some secret pact. it's just them acting in their best interest to follow regulations (however dubious) in order to keep making money.

dillondoyle 5y ago
The difference is in the structuring of the 'law' and government, which are very different between those countries. I put 'law' in quotations because from my perspective, US citizen, CCP's form of government doesn't work within anything similar to a framework of democracy, rights, and founding principles like the US.
jimmydorry 5y ago
While it may not be a literal blood pact with the government, there have been numerous accounts of Chinese (ex)-citizens being coerced into taking actions under the threat of harm to their family and relatives that remain on the main-land. Blood pact is a poor choice of wording, but not too far off from the reality. Perhaps blood-line persuasion is better?

cwkoss 5y ago

The concept of intellectual property theft was invented by the intellectual property lobby. Ideas should be free. Attempts to inhibit the freedom of information are sisyphean futility, inevitably doomed just like the endless War on Drugs.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
Of course, then the flow of information should be bidirectional.
nonethewiser 5y ago
What's your bank account number?

temp8964 5y ago

> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. I think this kind of policy is already in practice, maybe not in the federal government but in some highly sensitive private business. I heard, forgot the source, business like Lockheed martin has secret programs won’t hire you if your parents are born in mainland China. I found it reasonable, because the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things.

oingoboingothro 5y ago
It need not be a policy to be applied in practice at the governmental level. Writing things down is FOIA bait both on the USG side and the prime side (which your Lockheed scenario is a good example of, actually, despite your distinguishing of the two environments). Primes and feds are able to communicate about matters like this without communicating, and do it routinely. Source: Need to know.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
It's a sign of the times that the top comment here seems to be tacitly endorsing discrimination against Chinese Americans, and the top reply is explicitly doing so.
- oyashirochama 5y ago
  It's literally a requirement for TS/SCI clearance due to conflict of interest and national security. Natural born citizenship and they look at relationships fairly deeply. Even higher requirements can be needed for these positions too.
  - _yo2u 5y ago
    For security clearances, country of birth is not a direct factor. SEAD 4 is used as an adjudication guideline and uses a holistic approach towards clearance suitability determination. For every risk factor, SEAD 4 outlines possible mitigation factors. There are plenty of naturalized citizens (yes incl. from high-risk countries) working in IC, DoD, DoE.

Robotbeat 5y ago

>> I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or national interest. For top secret programs, maybe that makes sense, but if you’re thinking it should apply to any science/engineering areas with broad national interest/security applicability, it’s not a good idea at all. First, besides the moral implications (handled by others), there’s the fact that it preemptively disarms the US of one of its greatest strengths: the ability to brain drain other countries of their top talent and add it to its own. How did we do the Manhattan Project? By taking in all the scientists fleeing Germany and about-to-be-occupied mainland Europe (and after that, Operation Paperclip gave us a leg up in the Cold War). This would be a massive self-own, and it’s not worth it just because it might somewhat reduce industrial espionage a bit. What we should do is give every STEM graduate school graduate in good standing from other countries full status and ideally a job. Having a Chinese grad student as an asset on a science project is practically a meme, and China is indeed a huge labor pool from which we can cherry pick the best and the brightest. It makes no sense for us to educate their elites and then force them to go home even when they want to stay and become Americans. And if blackmailing families back home becomes an issue or real fear, then the State Department should do something about it. We’re not powerless here. Having seen how the actions driven by fear of industrial/national espionage can often be far worse than the industrial/national espionage ever would’ve been, I’m wary of taking measures that would directly mitigate our greatest strengths. Let’s lean into the whole “Statue of Liberty” Nation of Immigrants mythology, and build on it. It is our strength and it’d be foolish to give it up due to fear that China will copy our stuff. I mean, they’re going to do that anyway, even if we put Chinese background people in internment camps. Our only chance is winning based on speed of innovation (which can’t happen if we spend all our resources on paranoia… paranoia has a MASSIVE overhead and slows innovation to a crawl… no one can steal our inventions if we stop inventing stuff!) and the cultural victory of acting like the good guys and being the city on the hill. Remember, this is a game we now have to play by convincing people to like us and be our allies. We are no longer the unchallenged hegemon like in the 90s; we need our allies.

aliyfarah 5y ago
> And if blackmailing families back home becomes an issue or real fear Threats of blackmail against families have long been a reality and a key tool the CCP uses against overseas students and businessmen. There are 8bn people in the world, US can definitely afford to pay close scrutiny to Chinese citizens, they don’t hold a monopoly on skilled labor. > Our only chance is winning based on speed of innovation Advantage of speed in innovation is rendered useless when the Chinese just sit & wait while you spend billions on r&d only to steal all your IP when your ready to launch your product.

SkyMarshal 5y ago

I agree that Western companies operating in China are chasing a phantom carrot that the CCP will never allow them to catch, and that reciprocity, or "equalization" as I think of it, is necessary in trade. If Western companies can only operate in China via 50/50 partnership and technology transfer requirements, then the same should apply to Chinese companies in the West. If Western social media companies are banned in China, then Chinese social media companies should have whatever restrictions are constitutionally possible in the West, with a caveat [1]. Etc. That said, I think Western governments need to realize that their Chinese citizens are going to be put under pressure by the CCP as you said, but to presume innocence and err on the side of protecting them. The CCP will use both carrot and stick to coerce ethnic Chinese back to China, or to enlist them in espionage operations. Western governments need to develop strategies to counter that, to ensure their Chinese citizens remain safe and welcomed in their adopted homelands, and that they can safely reject CCP coercion and be protected by their adopted homelands' governments [2]. Some spies and agents will of course slip through the cracks, but Western governments can deal with those as they happen. Better to protect the majority of innocent Chinese who emigrated to the West for a better life, than to implicitly criminalize them all. The latter would play right into the CCP's hands. [1]: The 1st Ammendment may make banning social media companies impossible. It's also possible that allowing Chinese social media companies in the West is still a net gain for spreading the ideals of free speech and anti-censorship. [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28333148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28333148

jen20 5y ago
> The 1st Ammendment may make banning social media companies impossible. It's also possible that allowing Chinese social media companies in the West The "west" does not consist solely of the USA. Not even most of North America has first amendment protections, and Europe most certainly does not. Further it's not obvious that "freedom of speech" is even a defence if the US government has decided you shouldn't exist - look at Mega or The Pirate Bay for examples to the contrary.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  > Not even most of North America has first amendment protections, and Europe most certainly does not. Freedom of Expression and Assembly are Article 11 and 12 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has had legal force since 2009: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... > look at Mega or The Pirate Bay for examples to the contrary. I personally don't consider those to be examples 1st Amendment violations. It's almost all people claiming an entitlement to free entertainment, nothing more. Copyright law may be broken in the digital age, and manipulated by private interests at the expense of the public domain, and deserve reform, or maybe even civil disobedience. But nothing about that situation prevents anyone from making and posting media critiquing the government, or of generating political support for reform, and running on a platform promising to enact that reform. That's what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect above all.

ipaddr 5y ago

Wouldn't you have to worry about anyone who had strong family ties regardless of birth?

suriyaG 5y ago

As a complete aside. What is it that China offers that is making so many western companies go and do business in China? If it is cheap labour then India has it as well. I feel like I'm missing something, but not sure what. Can someone ELI5 please?

bulletsvshumans 5y ago
For manufacturing, a large portion of existing supply chains already exist within China, so even if it's not the cheapest, it's practical to set up your factory closer to where all your input components are manufactured.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> What is it that China offers that is making so many western companies go and do business in China? If it is cheap labour then India has it as well. I feel like I'm missing something, but not sure what. Can someone ELI5 please? It's not just cheap labor, a robust supply chain, etc. Those are definitely factors, but today, a lot of companies invest (or remain invested) in China because it significantly helps them access the Chinese domestic consumer market. India, of course, has a huge population too, but China's consumer market is a lot more developed and therefore attractive.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  I think that being an authoritarian country, where you don't expect surprises in every election was a strong incentive for american companies to invest in China instead of India. Of course, the idea that a country that doesn't give a damn about human rights would also not be completely invested in the protection of IP never was a an idea too advanced for the simple minds of the Jack Welchs eager to exploit cheap chinese manpower.
cletus 5y ago
So there are four major draws to China for Western companies: 1. It's a market of >1B people, hundreds of millions of whom are rapidly developing disposable income. That in itself is probably enough; 2. Cheap labour; 3. Supplier proximity; and 4. Political stability I can't stress how important (3) is. The net effect of all this is there's a network effect of suppliers in China. Those phones that are made in, say, Shenzhen require parts that are made by a factory down the road. This could be everything from chips to tiny screws. Anywhere else and you'd need to ship various parts from China and have the supply chains and inventory management that that entails. If you look past the fact that worker conditions are Dystopian, it's quite a wonder of the modern world, really. But when I (and I'm sure others) talk about the perils of kowtowing to China, it's because they want the market not the manufacturing capacity. Think of a movie studio that wants to distribute content in China. To get permission to do so that content has to be acceptable to the CCP. Many suspect this is why the movie "First Man" had no scene of planting the American flag in lunar soil (an iconic historical moment). Some pseudo-artistic defenses have been unenthusiastically lobbed on this issue. Personally I find these unconvincing at best. Western companies willingly engaging in self-censorship (or even the credible allegation of such) to pander to a foreign totalitarian government is not something I, personally, approve of.

hulitu 5y ago

Cisco has so many backdoors that they can not be there unintentional. Also an extension of national policy.

throwaway4good 5y ago

The deep racism of this comment is thinly disguised. Would you dare to write a similar slant about muslims or jews? Very sad to see this comment voted to the top of hn.

AndyMcConachie 5y ago
American policy towards China only makes sense if you're racist. So any discussion justifying American policy towards China will inevitably be deeply racist. It's almost as if imperialism and racism have some deeply intertwined correlative history ...
- dragonelite 5y ago
  The whole of western policy toward Asia is rooted in white supremacy. Just like AUKUS how the Anglo nations think they should dictate too Asia what needs to be done. Hell two of the three parties are half a world away not even part of the region. Only a coalition based in western white supremacy can thinks of a idea like AUKUS as a good idea. They didn't even collaborate with their QUAD allies or with ASEAN allies. So Indonesia and Malaysia we will park some nuclear subs in your sea lanes of communication, don't care what you brown people think about it.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > American policy towards China only makes sense if you're racist Would you say the same for American policy towards Russia?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hef19898 5y ago

Way back I interned at Nokia-Siemens-Networks, before they were sold to Nokia. I wondered two things: How do these people think they can compete with the Chinese? And why is the EU giving all the orders to the Chinese? Still not sure what the answers are, but I'd really like to have "local" suppliers for critical infrastructure and hardware.

jollybean 5y ago
The CCP is requiring Chinese banks to fund Huawei customers with extremely cheap financing terms. So HW competes on their own terms - and apparently they are a good 'one stop shop' combined with the Chinese mentality of 'always saying yest to everything' - but then you add in hugely generous 'no money down' financing provided by entities acting in concert with foreign policy, and you have something awesome. BT can rollout a massive new network while paying for it much later. Arguably, this sort of financing should be regarded as a trade violation. There's nothing wrong with Chinese banks offering those terms, but when it's coordinated/mandated by the government, and, the Central Bank is politicized for this reason, it's a form of economic dumping.

OneTimePetes 5y ago

>Why the issue with those born in mainland China? Because China doesn't allow dual-citizenship. Those that become naturalized in the United States, for example, lose their Chinese citizenship. This then becomes a carrot the CCP can dangle in front of those wishing to return: restoration of citizenship. That is, of course, if you happen to have a particular set of knowledge or skills deemed important to China. The main issue is not this. Born in mainland means your family lifes there and can be used as hostages or coercion bargaining chips. The bureaucracy and "rules&laws" are just decoration, for something that is more resembling of a mob-extortion racket by the CCP. Not mentioning this, is repackaging what is done by these hostages as a "choice" on their side. They have no choice, never had, they live at gunpoint since birth.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Of course, you could say exactly the same about the USA... And Huawei do offer the best kit on the market at the moment, with no actual evidence of security flaws...

techie128 5y ago

Disclaimer: I am neither a supporter of China or CCP. I have my own thoughts on them but they're besides the point for now. I don't mean to attack you but your post reeks of American exceptionalism and elitism. Allow me to explain: Your post is based on an underlying assumption that 'Western companies' lose because CCP / China creates a very uneven playing field. Thats the only reason in your mind that Western companies lose. This is not true. Western companies have lost in foreign markets due to variety of reasons not the least of which is a hostile local government. The Chinese government's job is to ensure a level playing field for everybody and regulate its market in its own best interests not foreign interests. They're doing exactly what the US government and other Western countries have been doing for a long time. In fact Western companies and countries have had a long head start and several factors in their favor historically. Some that come to my mind are investment capital availability, ability to take on more debt due to different regulatory policies in domiciled country, US government's ability to impose trade sanctions, tariffs, favorable currency exchange rates, etc. Traditionally the US (and other western countries, Europe included) have used various tactics to gain advantage in foreign markets. When the host government is weak, they have typically won. However in markets such as China (and India to an extent), the local government has created effective competitors that have crushed foreign rivals in some situations. In others their western counterparts have flourished. For example, Coke, Tesla and various companies have done really well as opposed to Google, Uber, etc. One of the greatest reasons Western companies have failed in markets such as China (and India) is because they enter it with an air of arrogance. They assume the market works in the same way as the rest of the world. Let me cite an example from India which arguably is more open at welcoming Western goods and services than China. When Dominoes first entered the Indian market, they sold the same pizzas that they sold in the US. Sure, the average Indian consumer would love to eat at Dominoes because of the brand value. However they got 2 things terribly wrong which caused them to wind down operations. First, the pizzas tasted like crap to the average Indian consumer. Even though they had money to spend, American Pizza recipes do not jive well with Indian taste buds. Second, the pricing was all wrong. The Indian market was price sensitive. Nobody was willing to pay for a crappy tasting pizza (to the Indian taste buds) when there were so many other local foods that could be had for lesser price. It wasn't a question of affordability, Dominos simply did not provide enough value for the customer. They eventually failed. Learned from their mistakes, relaunched with better pricing and Indianized their pizza offerings. They're doing pretty well now. Had they done their research well they wouldn't have made the mistake. In case of Dominos they were able to relaunch after taking massive losses. However, many others choose to exit the market. In this specific instance it wasn't the government, but the company's fault for launch such a crappy product at the wrong price.

anovikov 5y ago

CCP sees all ethnic Chinese as their subjects regardless of where they were born...

murbard2 5y ago

> There's a reason why there are Chinese versions of every Western company you can think of that's dominant in China. Luxury brands, e.g. LVMH, seem like a notable exception. If part of the value prop for the product is that it's being made by a fancy, long-established, foreign company, it's inherently hard to replicate.

speed_spread 5y ago
I doubt that LVMH products are as hard to replicate as technology. People who pay for luxury goods do not care for the product itself but for the prestige it carries. The products LVMH sells are proof of social standing, which are the final token in a chain of trust that would also include LVMH retail stores in which one can be publically verified to be actually shopping and buying - the elite wouldn't be caught dead in a mall selling counterfeit products.