US Steps Up Campaign To Purge Chinese Apps (afr.com) 78
The Trump administration said late Wednesday it was stepping up efforts to purge "untrusted" Chinese apps from US digital networks and called the Chinese-owned short-video app TikTok and messenger app WeChat "significant threats." From a report: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said expanded US efforts on a program it calls "Clean Network" would focus on five areas and include steps to prevent various Chinese apps, as well as Chinese telecoms companies, from accessing sensitive information on American citizens and businesses. Mr Pompeo's announcement comes after US President Donald Trump threatened to ban TikTok. The hugely popular video-sharing app has come under fire from US lawmakers and the administration over national security concerns, amid intensified tensions between Washington and Beijing.
"With parent companies based in China, apps like TikTok, WeChat and others are significant threats to personal data of American citizens, not to mention tools for CCP [Chinese Communist Party] content censorship," Mr Pompeo said. In an interview with state news agency Xinhua on Wednesday, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said the United States "has no right" to set up the "Clean Network" and calls the actions by Washington as "a textbook case of bullying." "Anyone can see through clearly that the intention of the US is to protect it's monopoly position in technology and to rob other countries of their proper right to development," said Mr Wang.
"With parent companies based in China, apps like TikTok, WeChat and others are significant threats to personal data of American citizens, not to mention tools for CCP [Chinese Communist Party] content censorship," Mr Pompeo said. In an interview with state news agency Xinhua on Wednesday, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said the United States "has no right" to set up the "Clean Network" and calls the actions by Washington as "a textbook case of bullying." "Anyone can see through clearly that the intention of the US is to protect it's monopoly position in technology and to rob other countries of their proper right to development," said Mr Wang.
The US is a net exporter of tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple must be very worried, they have a lot of apps and phones in China.
Re: The US is a net exporter of tech (Score:3)
US banning Chinese social media apps would merely be matching Chinese policy on US social media apps, where Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc are banned. Even Vine (the inspiration for TikTok) was banned back in the day.
Banning Apple would be a new escalation, unless they ban Apple from sourcing specific Chinese components ala US vs Huawei, but then again there are no such comparable Chinese sourced components in Apple products.
Re: (Score:2)
That ship has already sailed. We are mid-negotiations for trade, censorship, and so on. This is not a starting point, but a response
Re:The US is a net exporter of tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The US is a net exporter of tech (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually thought Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership deal was the way to go, even after it became a political liability in the last campaign and Hillary withdrew her support. Market forces create demand in both directions and governance is needed, but just lashing out with no larger vision is just going to make an expensive mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree. And exposing our workers directly to competition by practically slave labor could not have turned out entirely well.
I actually thought Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership deal was the way to go, even after it became a political liability in the last campaign and Hillary withdrew her support. Market forces create demand in both directions and governance is needed, but just lashing out with no larger vision is just going to make an expensive mess.
Re foreign interference... China leans towards Biden, as an rational, though firm adversery. Trump looks to Puten for help and in return, to protect Trumps hotel and property investments in Moscow.
It was allowed when their economy was developing (Score:5, Interesting)
And you know what, they're right. We export billions of dollars of goods to China. There's just one small problem.... the Average American worker sees none of that. Their jobs were shipped away, their wages collapsed and all they got was this crummy t-shirt made in a sweat shop.
Global trade and immigration are both good things for a society that takes care of it's people and makes an effort to maintain a decent standard of living for everyone. In our Dog Eat Dog puritanical country it's just a race to the bottom.
That said I don't think we can put the Genie that is China back in the bottle. And our population is aging largely because people don't want more than 1 or 2 kids, so we're gonna need immigration.
We're better off creating social structures that take the wealth from all that and use it to ensure everybody's got a decent life. Trouble is that conflicts with deeply ingrained notions of puritanicalism and work.
Re:It was allowed when their economy was developin (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know what, they're right. We export billions of dollars of goods to China. There's just one small problem.... the Average American worker sees none of that. Their jobs were shipped away, their wages collapsed and all they got was this crummy t-shirt made in a sweat shop.
I'm not sure "export" is even the right word. Often it's a Chinese factory making goods for the Chinese market, with a US firm getting a cut for providing the capital and IP. That's more or less what the Chinese government insists on, and by itself it seems fine. However, it's ridiculous to have a situation where that's happening in China, but in the US it's Chinese workers making goods for the US markets and the US firms get a cut. That's not a trade deal, that's capitulation.
That arrangement benefits the wealthy elite, and to be fair retirees and other moderately wealth folk, but it's disproportionately bad for workers. It's an abandonment of the US government's duty to look after its citizens.
No, we do actually export a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
Again though cheap consumer goods and the opportunity to sell to Chinese consumers doesn't balance the collapse of wages for most Americans.
Isolationism isn't the answer, not because of whether it's good or bad, but because we're not likely to get away with it. Trump has done a lot of grandstanding but he hasn't really done all that much. And as mentioned we can't slash immigration and expect to have a functioning economy in 20-40 years. There won't be enough young folk to support the old folk.
We'd be much better off focusing on taking all that wealth and doing something constructive with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Except, that it has nothing to do with protecting US companies, just a revenge for a certain seats booking campaign.
If China does the same, what is there for US companies, which this move suppose to help?
A general comment: things do not look good and it's getting worse for open and free humankind, China has a great firewall, Russia requires all data be stored within Russia, now US joined, soon (hopefully not) the Internet will start to fraction and people will fall for politicians scare mongering and star
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign social media apps are already banned in China. In this situation, China can't respond in kind as they've already used all those cards, they can only escalate by banning some company in lieu of an app. However such an escalation would hit them in the face after having accused the US of being provocative.
Re: (Score:1)
Foreign social media apps are already banned in China. In this situation, China can't respond in kind as they've already used all those cards, they can only escalate by banning some company in lieu of an app. However such an escalation would hit them in the face after having accused the US of being provocative.
Not all, from what I know only Google. Apple, Facebook and more are all available, however my point was, if this is considered a bad behaviour against freedom we stand for, why to do the same? If somebody does some mischief, is it OK to just do the same? How does banning Chinese apps help? I understand government and military, which should not be a place for social apps anyway, but how does it stand for what US represents to ban all citizens from using an app, because it's foreign?
I don't know anyone who uses WeChat (Score:1)
Sounds like an echo from bad times (Score:4, Insightful)
As a German I may be biased, but this triggers an eerie echo of signs from 33 to 45.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like an echo from bad times (Score:4, Insightful)
That was an actual barrier that prevented trade. There wasn't a need to remind me to "Don't buy from Russians". I couldn't have even if I wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
actual barrier that prevented trade
Sounds like lots of the stuff that Trump would like to do to China...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rejecting software and hardware because the Chinese government has a hand in it is the same as gassing Jews in showers?
Stealing foreign assets (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh good grief. Chinese "intellectual property" being seized or that the Chinese seized?
Re:Sounds like an echo from bad times (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I was referring to the signs "Don't buy from Jews".
That's how it started, not how it ended.
And words are important here. They did NOT call for making the internet spy-proof or raising security or making it generally spy-proof.... They called for a cleansing from chinese products. This is an economic attack on China. No one mentioned they were worried about actual security issues.
I trust China as far as I could throw it, but unlike other countries, they haven't been caught implementing backdoors into their products.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Mod up please.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has been on an anti-China electronic spying campaign for a few years now. Clearly they know something, and it's something they haven't shared with the public, or with their allies.
The US knows very well the possibilities for electronic spying, because they do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because the gouvernment would never lie.
Re: (Score:1)
About those back doors:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
The Chinese conduct more espionage than any other nation on earth. They do so at a scale that is unimaginable in scope.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/... [csis.org]
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/... [cnn.com]
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/front... [pbs.org]
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/c... [nbcnews.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/feat... [bloomberg.com]
All Chinese company products are effectively back doored by Chinese law. In China the law requires all companies and people of Chinese descent (regardless of where they liv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right.
But that's exactlky why the actual wording is so important. Because that's what could turn a legitimate criticism into a racist rant. Chinese gouvernment and human righty leave more than enough opportunity for criticism. But I haven't heard anything about that. And are Chinese spies really the only spies we need to be worried about?
In the curent 5G hardware discussion, one of my biggest surprises was that none of possible vendor agreed to a complete, independent security audit. Excep
It takes a special kind of face... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said the United States "has no right" to set up the "Clean Network" and calls the actions by Washington as "a textbook case of bullying."
It takes guts to say that, after basically almost all of the Western services are banned by the great firewall since years.
> "Anyone can see through clearly that the intention of the US is to protect it's monopoly position in technology and to rob other countries of their proper right to development," said Mr Wang.
Protect their monopoly? Chinese have alternatives for basically every Western service, mostly because they want full freedom to censor and send the police to those who don't please the regime.
It takes a special kind of face to say what Mr Wang just said. I suggest Mr Wang to put his name where his mouth is.
Re: (Score:3)
So China does this, and it's bad and they should be punished. But is the solution for the US government to engage in counter-censorship, and restricting (possibly illegally) it's own citizens rights?
I would instead suggest that trade with China is inherently unequal, and rather than trying to be as bad as China, we should instead ensure that we can be independent of them and satisfy our trade needs. This could mean both infrastructure and government subsidy within the US, as well as strengthening less autho
Re: (Score:1)
Hypocrisy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not hypocritical because its not even remotely the same thing.
Every time an American trash talks Trump on social media they get disappeared to a reeducation camp? If the government finds out you belong to a troublesome minority like, say, blacks, you get forcibly sterilised? Maybe one day we will be able to talk openly about Trump Derangement Syndrome instead coming up with highly obfuscated ways to talk about politics, like embedding meaning in cartoons, numbers, and other seemingly harmless codewords? No, not even close.
Even white supremacists are openly retarded about their politics in the US. Think about what this freedom means. And think about a country lacking all of it. And tell me again how trying to find some balance between public security and personal encryption is the exact same thing as going full authoritarian?
Also, if you need evidence, WeChat even had a press release talking about how they are so cool and technologically advanced and use the messaging content on the global application to train their domestic censorship algorithms.
I don't know if you've noticed (Score:1)
But It's not social media I guess, so it's ok. But they seem to be working on that [tweaktown.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Being questioned and released after one is suspected of arson on federal property is not comparable to becoming forever lost to one's family and friends after selling books which accuse top leaders of corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, it's probably used mostly to monitor Chinese nationals.. but can you tell me with a straight face that if they had access to a high ranking gov't officials data, they wouldn't take a peek? I know the US gov't definitely would.
"untrusted" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's swell at first glance, but the government does not have the capacity to figure out which code citizens trust and which code they don't. To me, "untrusted" includes anything for which users are denied access to the source code or the ability to maintain. To you, it might mean something different. To the government, you damn well know it's virtually arbitrary with little connection to reality, other than "Chinese!!!1" and while I don't necessarily disagree with them on this particular code, they're cov
We need experienced people to implement (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the governnent is the one responsible for the policy of economic engagement with China, ostensibly to liberalize them towards freedom as the citizens become more and more wealthy.
If that's not working out as we had hoped, the government must address this via arm twisting, ideally economic.
This is what that looks like.
The solution to all of this? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. China hasn't really been communist in a long time.
China is authoritarian. I realize Americans have been purposely scared shitless from a young age because they've been "at war" with "communism" for seventy years plus, but communism and authoritarianism aren't the same thing.
There are lots of communes, including a bunch in the US. If you're anywhere in the northeast US, you're probably within a day's drive of one.
Authoritarianism is where the people in power tell everyone else what to do, or else, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you implying that China is not authoritarian because the reaction to the Tiananmen square protests was not an infringement of personal freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
This does not happen in a vacuum. It only happens with the direction of western governments, that their citizens and companies should engage with China.
If you have problems with the policy, as many are having now, more and more, as their domestic panopticon grinds the Chinese people under a boot of watchful control, then this ks what fight back by the west looks like.
Hurt those in China who got skyrocketting wealth as these apps went way up in value. It will either be officials directly, or indirectly who
Okay China (Score:2)
So China can build an internet firewall to censor their citizens and prevent foreign compaigns from serving their products in China, but the US can't do what is more or less the same thing (for presumably different reasons)? Okay, China.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the USA pretends that it stands for free markets and China does not, yep.
It is just as ridiculous as USA complaining about China delaying election in Hong Kong just one day after Trump suggested doing the same in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Can We Call It Fascism Yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can We Call It Fascism Yet? (Score:2)
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hear
You have got to be joking, now not only does the first amendment confer protection of privacy and anonymity, but the right to hear? It's getting quite a bit stretched out already.
Scrambled police radio would be unconstitutional?
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly this is a stupid argument. If the police makes speech that is scrambled. They aren't denying a person the freedom of hearing scrambled codes.
"Dissenting in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall observed that “[t]he freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.” Justice Marshall was defending the right of American social science professors to hear the speech of Belgian academic Ernest E. Mande
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you read the text of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
The Government blanketly banning Chinese apps from an app store in the US is a violation of the first amendment, plain and simple. It doesn't matter in this context that the Chinese Government has been doing the same thing to US apps and western tech products in China for years, because China does not have freedom of speech. The whole point of the First Amendment is to establish freedom of speech in the US, so if the Government violates that law, it violates it no matter what other countries do or don't do.
Ah, the usual argument of the non-lawyer - all US Constitutional rights are completely absolute.
I'm not a lawyer. But I've got friends who are. And I promise you that I know more about how US law really works than you do. So let me tackle this.
1) First of all, no Constitutionally guaranteed rights are absolute. The classic example of this is that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to cause a panic when there is no fire and then no one can touch you legally because of "free speech" i
Re: (Score:2)
This argument from values is really the most persuasive argument (and only one that makes sense to me). Like the NFL kneeling protests, Trump and other Americans don't have to like TikTok, but all Americans should embrace the spirit of free speech that allow these things.
Hahahaha (Score:3)
Wait till after he's re-elected (Score:2)
Or do you actually think the Democrats will stand up to him? The guns rights folks certainly won't, they proved that when they turned a blind eye to his Gestapo tactics in Portland and his threat to postpone the election. And it's come out that 40% of Republicans (and 4% of Dems) don't think Democracy is the right way to govern the country...
Re: (Score:2)
Next up: Ethnic cleansing. (Score:1)
Full on track, are we, Mr. Trump?
We'll talk again, after the end of the war, in 2045.
And M$ buying them will fix it all? Really? (Score:2)
At that point, the Chinese will have 100% confidence that the US is spying on users.
There is one, and only one, good answer: open-source replacements, so both US and Chinese authorities can look for backdoors.
Oh, oops, sorry, there are no qualified US "authorities", only ignorant, anti-science supporters, yes men, and contributors of the Orange Hairball.