3 ms·
> 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 spyin
by 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 agoYou still have not given any evidence how DJI is not a national security risk?
- palata 2y agoDoesn'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 agoLike 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 agoThe 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 agoYou obviously have a bias here so its going to be impossible to have any real discussion. There are very simple facts that I will restate for you. The CCP has seats at every major mainland corporation. Chinese corporations have in recent years been caught in some very spy like espionage, this is happening globally. China is an adversary to the US and Europe. There is no further burden of proof needed when talking about sensitive industries. You don't need to catch DJI in the act, similar to TikTok, if you cannot sever data/ties with the mainland there are real risks. Geopolitics suck but its a real risk that has to be snipped before it becomes a problem. Do the five eyes and other countries have national intelligence that are collecting data, absolutely. I cannot recall any recent published articles about overt Western corporate espionage and especially any that were supported by a parent country.
- palata 2y ago> I cannot recall any recent published articles about overt Western corporate espionage and especially any that were supported by a parent country. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24992485 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24992485 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee_investigation_of_the_NSA_spying_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee... And this is just one known case of the US spying on allies.
- infecto 2y agoAre any of those corporate espionage? Those seems to fall under government spying which I acknowledged exists for all companies and especially so with the five eyes.
- palata 2y agoSo you justify the ban of TikTok, Huawei and DJI for strong national security reasons, but when we talk about the US spying on the government of allies, you say "spying on a government is okay, the problem is corporate espionage"? Can you tell me - in your logic - why the hell there is a need to ban DJI if it's okay for the CCP to spy on the US government? Or will you now say "It's not okay because it's not the US"? Or maybe "It's okay to spy on allies, but not on adversaries, except if you are the US because then it's okay to do both"?