4 ms·

I cannot argue on the TikTok as strongly but I can see strong arguments on why Huawei and DJI are national security risks. Some of this is more educated guesses

I cannot argue on the TikTok as strongly but I can see strong arguments on why Huawei and DJI are national security risks. Some of this is more educated guesses so not defensible with numbers. We know most major companies in the Chinese market have extremely close ties to the CCP. No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms but I believe the CCP takes it to a next level. We know for a fact that the CCP and chinese entities play extremely hardball when it comes to corporate espionage. Some of the stories we have seen almost read like a spy novel. Certainly Huawei and DJI make some incredible products but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure, I do believe it warrants major concern for national security. I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy compared to the easier explanation, China is a fairly crafty bad actor in a lot of cases. 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked, just the ones that have very significant national security risks.

suraci 2y ago
> 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked because it's impossible. the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks! just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...
- infecto 2y ago
  I am not sure I follow your point. There have been both National Security risks as well as protectionist economic policy enforced against china that benefits domestic players. In a lot of those protectionist cases, there is either a case of China flooding the market or there are cases where the government makes a choice that its beneficial to keep domestic manufacturers alive. In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.
  - suraci 2y ago
    > If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. 1. of course there'll be no 'national security risks' because EU is an ally, and the US is spying on it 2. even though, troubles come to US's allies sometimes, like what Alstom and ASML met 3. EU products are mostly less compatible, overall, it cannot challenge the position where the US holds in the global value chain, so pose less of threat
    - infecto 2y ago
      You still have not given any evidence how DJI is not a national security risk?
      - palata 2y ago
        Doesn't it work the other way round? You'd have to prove that they are a national security risk? Because it's hard to prove a negative.
        infecto 2y ago
        Like the way your irony works? I listed my arguments as why you can make a case that they are national security threats. You are more than welcome to call it a fake pretense but the fact remains that the majority of Chinese imports are not restricted and that includes tech/high-tech related items. If you have nothing more than America is ironic I can see where your endless questions stem from.
        glurblur 2y ago
        The burden of proof lies on the accuser. If you are not able to provide a proof of national security threat from tiktok or dji, then don't treat it like it's a fact. All the "ifs" don't constitute as a proof.
        infecto 2y ago
amrocha 2y ago
Read some of the many stories out there about the NSA, please. They have backdoors into internet infrastructure. If any country is a threat to information security, it’s the USA.
- infecto 2y ago
  Did you read my comment? I explicitly called out backdoors, you should read comments closer. It most definitely happens within the US but the ties between the US government and corporate entities are no where as perversely intertwined as they are in China.
  - palata 2y ago
    So you would say for sure that the NSA has definitely never been used to give advantages to US companies? I could totally imagine Boeing receiving information in order to win a contract against Airbus. After all, we know for a fact that the US have been spying on European politicians.
    - infecto 2y ago
      You are making up stories now. We have proven news article of flagrant corporate espionage happening from Chinese actors. We know that CCP upper leadership holds seats at the major mainland corporations. Will I say never has US intelligence participated in corporate espionage? There are documented cases of the US meddling but as far as we have evidence, not at the level of Chinese interference. So nope, I won't say for sure but I am also not fabricating stories.
      - palata 2y ago
        Sorry I don't follow. What did I make up? That I don't believe that the US are "always fair" either? That I don't need to believe it, because it has been documented many times? > We know that CCP upper leadership holds seats at the major mainland corporations. And who holds seats/has major influence in the US government?
palata 2y ago
> I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy I am not proposing a conspiracy, I am merely noting some irony in the fact that the US are doing protectionism here. > No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms Well, most of the Western Internet goes through the US, and we know for a fact that the US try to extract as much as they can from whatever they can (remember Snowden?). Also the US are very fine with US companies owning all the data of a big part of the world, and they would be really pissed if some country started banning them "for national security reasons". > but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure You don't need to connect the drone to the Internet. Technical solutions would most definitely exist, I am convinced of that. The reason DJI is being banned is because DJI is 7 years ahead of anyone else, and the gap is getting bigger every year. It really, really sounds like the US drone companies have been lobbying a ton because they just can't compete.

suraci 2y ago

> 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked because it's impossible. the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks! just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...

infecto 2y ago
I am not sure I follow your point. There have been both National Security risks as well as protectionist economic policy enforced against china that benefits domestic players. In a lot of those protectionist cases, there is either a case of China flooding the market or there are cases where the government makes a choice that its beneficial to keep domestic manufacturers alive. In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.
- suraci 2y ago
  > If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion. 1. of course there'll be no 'national security risks' because EU is an ally, and the US is spying on it 2. even though, troubles come to US's allies sometimes, like what Alstom and ASML met 3. EU products are mostly less compatible, overall, it cannot challenge the position where the US holds in the global value chain, so pose less of threat
  - infecto 2y ago
    You still have not given any evidence how DJI is not a national security risk?
    - palata 2y ago
      Doesn't it work the other way round? You'd have to prove that they are a national security risk? Because it's hard to prove a negative.
      - infecto 2y ago
        Like the way your irony works? I listed my arguments as why you can make a case that they are national security threats. You are more than welcome to call it a fake pretense but the fact remains that the majority of Chinese imports are not restricted and that includes tech/high-tech related items. If you have nothing more than America is ironic I can see where your endless questions stem from.
        glurblur 2y ago
        The burden of proof lies on the accuser. If you are not able to provide a proof of national security threat from tiktok or dji, then don't treat it like it's a fact. All the "ifs" don't constitute as a proof.
        infecto 2y ago

amrocha 2y ago

Read some of the many stories out there about the NSA, please. They have backdoors into internet infrastructure. If any country is a threat to information security, it’s the USA.

infecto 2y ago
Did you read my comment? I explicitly called out backdoors, you should read comments closer. It most definitely happens within the US but the ties between the US government and corporate entities are no where as perversely intertwined as they are in China.
- palata 2y ago
  So you would say for sure that the NSA has definitely never been used to give advantages to US companies? I could totally imagine Boeing receiving information in order to win a contract against Airbus. After all, we know for a fact that the US have been spying on European politicians.
  - infecto 2y ago
    You are making up stories now. We have proven news article of flagrant corporate espionage happening from Chinese actors. We know that CCP upper leadership holds seats at the major mainland corporations. Will I say never has US intelligence participated in corporate espionage? There are documented cases of the US meddling but as far as we have evidence, not at the level of Chinese interference. So nope, I won't say for sure but I am also not fabricating stories.
    - palata 2y ago
      Sorry I don't follow. What did I make up? That I don't believe that the US are "always fair" either? That I don't need to believe it, because it has been documented many times? > We know that CCP upper leadership holds seats at the major mainland corporations. And who holds seats/has major influence in the US government?

palata 2y ago

> I think you are proposing a much more extreme conspiracy I am not proposing a conspiracy, I am merely noting some irony in the fact that the US are doing protectionism here. > No doubt historically the US has gotten companies to put in backdoors or other mechanisms Well, most of the Western Internet goes through the US, and we know for a fact that the US try to extract as much as they can from whatever they can (remember Snowden?). Also the US are very fine with US companies owning all the data of a big part of the world, and they would be really pissed if some country started banning them "for national security reasons". > but when you have drones being used to survey the electric grid or other major pieces of infrastructure You don't need to connect the drone to the Internet. Technical solutions would most definitely exist, I am convinced of that. The reason DJI is being banned is because DJI is 7 years ahead of anyone else, and the gap is getting bigger every year. It really, really sounds like the US drone companies have been lobbying a ton because they just can't compete.