US Sanctions Six Chinese Tech Companies For Supporting Spy Balloon Programs (cnbc.com) 37
According to CNBC, the United States is placing sanctions on six Chinese tech companies for supporting spy balloon programs that have spanned more than 40 countries. The development comes less than a week after the U.S. military used fighter jets to shoot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon along the South Carolina coast. From the report: "The Commerce Department will not hesitate to use the Entity List and our other regulatory and enforcement tools to protect U.S. national security and sovereignty," said Deputy Secretary of Commerce Don Graves. "The Entity List is a powerful tool for identifying and cutting off actors that seek to use their access to global markets to do harm and threaten American national security. We will not hesitate to use the Entity List and our other regulatory and enforcement tools to protect U.S. national security." Earlier today, a U.S. military F-22 shot down a second "high altitude object" in American airspace over Alaska.
"We're calling this an object because that's the best description we have right now," said White House spokesman John Kirby. He also said U.S. officials did not yet know which nation or group was responsible for it.
"We're calling this an object because that's the best description we have right now," said White House spokesman John Kirby. He also said U.S. officials did not yet know which nation or group was responsible for it.
Somewhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sad Benjamin noises
Just sanction all Chinese Companies (Score:1)
If you are going to sanction every Chinese company which supports their own military, just rip off the Band-Aid and sanction them all. Then other countries can retaliate against US cloud providers, PC manufacturers, paper companies, etc. who provide services to the Pentagon every time our country is caught spying.
This all just seems a bit silly. All countries spy on every other country (that matters), news at 11.
Chinese Company = Chinese Government? (Score:3)
Doesn't the Chinese Government pull the strings on what ever Chinese business they want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically? Yeah.
Keep in mind that China is a single party state. That doesn't just extend to political opposition, but to society as a whole. The people are the Party, the Party is the State. So corporations, formed and staffed by the People, are also an apparatus of the State.
Not that China has its fingers in every single business. But once you get to a certain size and importance, you will attract enough attention that you're at least going to be observed at some level. Assuming your company's leaders are
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the Chinese Government pull the strings on what ever Chinese business they want to?
Yes, but remember, so can every other government. Everybody's got laws about doing stuff in the name of national defense. In this country we have "national security letters" which compel you to take actions to support the national defense, and typically prohibit you from disclosing the requirement to the public. This problem led to the idea of the "warrant canary". Look this stuff up yourself if you want, my internet connection is barely working right now and it's taking me multiple tries to load a page. Op
Re: Chinese Company = Chinese Government? (Score:3)
In the US, some companies have scruples and can refuse to cooperate with illegal warrants and searches. As you point out, some have found creative workarounds, others have outright sued the government and prevailed.
In China if you refuse, you get executed or sent to a work camp and you get replaced by a government stooge.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, some companies have scruples and can refuse to cooperate with illegal warrants and searches.
It depends on the basis. If it's in the name of law enforcement, they can fight it, expensively. If it's in the name of national security, they have to beg permission to even oppose the action, and the government doesn't have to grant it.
As you point out, some have found creative workarounds
Sure, to let us know that something happened. Whoopee!
In China if you refuse, you get executed or sent to a work camp and you get replaced by a government stooge.
NEVER FORGET QWEST [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, a company called Qwest refused to play ball and immediately cancelled a lucrative contract and then send him to jail for insider tradier and refusing bail.
Sounds a lot like china...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Refusal of NSA surveillance requests
In May 2006, USA Today reported that millions of telephone calling records had been handed over to the United States National Security Agency by AT&T Corp., Verizon, and BellSouth since September 11, 2001. This data has been used to create a database of all international and domestic calls. Qwest was allegedly the lone holdout, despite threats from the NSA that their refusal to cooperate may jeopardize future government contracts,[10] a decision which has earned them praise from those who oppose the NSA program.[11]
In the case of ACLU v. NSA, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on August 17, 2006 ruled that the government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.[12] The Bush Administration filed an appeal in the case, and Judge Taylor's decision was overturned by the appeals court on the basis of a lack of standing.
Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalled the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claimed that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program.[13] On April 14, 2009, Nacchio surrendered to a federal prison camp in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, to begin serving a six-year sentence for an insider trading conviction. The United States Supreme Court denied bail pending appeal the same day.[14][15]
A social media experiment and website covering the Qwest holdout, "Thank you Qwest dot Org"[16] built by Netherlands-based webmaster Richard Kastelein and American expatriate journalist Chris Floyd, was covered by the CNN Situation Room,[17] USA Today,[18] New York Times,[19][20] International Herald Tribune,[21] Denver Post,[22][23] News.com,[24] and the Salt Lake Tribune.[25]
Re: (Score:2)
In this country we have "national security letters" which compel you to take actions to support the national defense, and typically prohibit you from disclosing the requirement to the public.
FALSE.
A National Security Letter cannot compel any action other than turning over information in your possession about or belonging to a 3rd party. This is a common misconception.
The distinction between "Turn over records in your custody" and "Do anything we say" is significant -massive even.
You are correct that there is typically a prohibition on disclosing the NSL.
Re: (Score:1)
Balloons can easily reach twice the maximum height of a fifth generation fighter jet. So outmaneuvering one isn't much of a problem.
Fantastic. So "balloons" will be the new trillon-dollar justification for the 7th Gen fighter jet at a billion dollars each. Let's hope it can reach all new heights to compete with that 18th century tech.
(As a taxpayer I'll just wait for the inevitable fearmongering bullshit that always somehow justifies that kind of spending. If I'm exaggerating, then why is the Military Industrial Complex laughing at you.)
Are we daft? (Score:2)
Why don't we send our own balloons there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are we daft? (Score:3)
Bollocks. Stop being a bloody arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's uncommon. But it's not unknown, especially in phrases that were copied whole from the British, like "are you daft".
OTOH, I don't think I've encountered it in the last 2 decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I would have started with an earlier incident where China was the aggressor, but you can go back as far as you please...at least as far as the Vietnam War and probably back to the end WWII, when the current Chinese government came into existence. (And if you do, the US was certainly the aggressor, because China didn't have the capability.)
Sanctions becoming toothless! (Score:2)
"...We will not hesitate to use the Entity List and our other regulatory and enforcement tools to protect U.S. national security."
Russia is doing just fine with the most serious sanctions regime meted against any country in history. So will China in my opinion.
BTW, Russia was supposed to have run out of resources to "bankroll" its war operations by [end of] April last year - hasn't happened, huh!
Frankly, this "sanctions" business from the "mighty" USA, is becoming stale. China will simply ignore.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Sanctions becoming toothless! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China won't simply ignore sanctions. But it sure won't collapse. What sanctions will do is cause both sided to build up their industrial base, and trade between them to collapse.
Such strength (Score:2)
>"The development comes less than a week after the U.S. military used fighter jets to shoot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon along the South Carolina coast"
Instead of shooting it down in Alaska, or anywhere of thousands of opportunities of low risk areas before it traveled across the entire country, presumably collecting and transmitting data the whole way.
>"He also said U.S. officials did not yet know which nation or group was responsible for it."
Right. Just like COVID-19, I suppose. Oh, and th
ignorance (Score:1)
John J. Mearsheimer predicted this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a "there is no middle-ground" delusion, which is built into US politics. As the recent mid-term elections demonstrated, being against China (crime) does not equal being for USA (Republican party).
Re: John J. Mearsheimer predicted this (Score:2)
Since the article didn't list them (Score:4, Informative)
The entities that the United States targeted Friday were Beijing Nanjiang Aerospace Technology Company, Dongguan Lingkong Remote Sensing Technology Company, Eagles Men Aviation Science and Technology Group Company, Guangzhou Tian-Hai-Xiang Aviation Technology Company, Shanxi Eagles Men Aviation Science and Technology Group Company and China Electronics Technology Group Corporation 48th Research Institute.
Re: Since the article didn't list them (Score:2)
Objectivity (Score:2)