China To Launch Initiative To Set Global Data-Security Rules (reuters.com) 81
China is launching an initiative to set global standards on data security, countering U.S. efforts to persuade countries to ringfence their networks from Chinese technology, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. Reuters: Under its "Global Initiative on Data Security," China would call on all countries to handle data security in a "comprehensive, objective and evidence-based manner," the Journal said, citing a draft that it had reviewed. The initiative would urge countries to oppose "mass surveillance against other states" and call on tech companies not to install "backdoors in their products and services to illegally obtain users' data, control or manipulate users' systems and devices."
not to install "backdoors in their products (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, they want FRONTdoors instead.
Re:not to install "backdoors in their products (Score:5, Interesting)
The phrasing is interesting. Bits like
- oppose "mass surveillance against other states"
- "backdoors in their products and services to illegally obtain users' data"
(emphasis mine)
The Chinese surveillance state would not be affected by this. Nor, for that matter, would it seem to impact any attempts by China to steal IP - that's not user data, after all. Plus any action which was sanctioned by the state would not be covered.
It's a paper tiger, at best - fundamentally meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Most government security advice is. There are very few you can trust, if any.
Re:not to install "backdoors in their products (Score:4)
It's a paper tiger, at best - fundamentally meaningless.
If you are a small African or even European state then it's currently the highest bid. No other tech superpower has even proposed offering this as a promise before. Hows about bidding at least the same, but throwing in a non-corrupt legal system in which cases can be tried against these promises?
Re: (Score:1)
Who actually has a non-corrupt legal system though?
The US certainly doesn't, as many foreign companies have discovered. In Europe it's a mixed bag, some countries have great legal systems but maybe more in the way of privacy laws than other nations would like. Others like the UK are unreliable to say the least.
Japan's system is decent for civil stuff but hard for foreign companies to understand and also somewhat biased towards domestic organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland? Maybe Denmark and Norway. Finland partly. I'm not sure about New Zealand. I'd look at the top 15 places in the corruption perception index [transparency.org] and start from there, excluding a few like the UK and Switzerland with specific histories.
The US system is biased for sure but I'm not sure how much it's corrupt in all places. In fact, I think that, with the correct edging around and specific protections for foreign nationals, within all of the US, Germany and the UK you could create a reasonably fair syste
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with the US system is that the richer party has a big advantage. Also it's possible to cheat sometimes, like selecting a jurisdiction to file in or selecting a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
China To Launch Initiative To Set Global Data-Security Rules
It's a paper tiger, at best - fundamentally meaningless.
Read: All Your Base Are Belong To Us.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even close to being true. They are notorious IP thieves, and anything that can aid them in that process is of value to the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
All countries were notorious IP thieves until they rose to power and reached technological parity. That's just a matter of fact. The US was considered one of the biggest IP thieves until basically the old world decided to blow themselves up during WWI and WWII. After that, US was the only uncontested and undamaged country with capital that could still be invested in research. USSR was peanuts, with a smaller population and barely industrialized country. The rest of the world was just trying their best
Re: (Score:2)
True. Except that the majority of the western world did this in unison circa 1800s (your WWI/WWII dates are a bit off there, the industrial revolution started well before that), and they did so at a time when IP laws were less developed. The US copied from Europe at the same time it and Europe were industrializing, while European countries were stealing from each other too.
We live in a different
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most coherently worded response to the previous statement that I've seen in some time. Thank you. I wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was true then the US wouldn't have to steal Germany's IP after the war. There was still large amounts of tech transfers going on. IP laws were developed before the 1800s. The Queen Anne statute being the important trend setter. US was simply notorious in stealing IP. It has nothing to do with different value systems because UK was constantly pissed off about it. US was simply UK's version of China then.
This is simply how you catch up. One way or another tech transfers have to occur. Europe w
Re: (Score:1)
IP laws existed since the beginning of time, but they developed significantly in the 1800s; they've even changed very significantly over the last 10-20. Especially relevant to this exchange, IP laws protecting industrial equipment *across national borders* did not come into effect until 1883 (Paris Convention). The Queen Anne statute was for copyright protection, not patent protection which is the heart of the issue with China today. The WTO and WIPO didn'
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of talking about the development of IP laws. The point is US back in the 19th century was going against what was considered the IP culture of that time. Namely you shouldn't be stealing other countries' IP. That's the whole point. The law was established well enough that UK was pissed off enough to think that US wasn't following the rules. The development of WIPO, etc. is not important. The argument is simply that WIPO, and other IP conventions were developed after the Western world g
Re: (Score:1)
I was wrong, you are a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2)
1). Hooray for moral equivalency 2). I think you would find that most past "IP thieves" were nowhere near as crass or brazen about it as the Chinese are today. But hey if you want to turn a blind eye, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah he may as well be a propaganda poster for Xi.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: not to install "backdoors in their products (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hire the fox to guard the henhouse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
.. in a "comprehensive, objective and evidence-based manner,"
"We'll TELL you what 'evidence' there is!"
The initiative would urge countries to oppose "mass surveillance against other states"
"Stop watching us! There's nothing to see! Go watch someone else!"
and call on tech companies not to install "backdoors in their products and services to illegally obtain users' data, control or manipulate users' systems and devices."
"We're the only ones who get to do that, you're not allowed!"
Fuck you, China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hire the fox to guard the henhouse? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a JOKE for China to be preaching about 'data security'.
It's the same joke as when the USA preaches about data security. The fact that China wants to see my stuff is pretty irrelevant. When a US one gets to see my details, I can expect spam, "special offers" and all sorts of fun stuff. I can expect people to try and get into my bank account. I can expect to be surveyed by criminal groups such as the NSA, CIA, various mafias and so on.
While there are plenty of people that could be harmed by Chinese surveillance, I am not one. I am not of that ethnicity, I don't know anyone there, I do not develop "intellectual property" and I am not a journalist. US organisations are another matter. I am not bankrupt so I am a target. In fact, that probably does't exclude me from the interests of megacorps and other thieves...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone else does it, so it's A-OKAY for China to do it!
You're an idiot. shut up.
Re: (Score:1)
... It's the same joke as when the USA preaches about data security. The fact that China wants to see my stuff is pretty irrelevant. When a US one gets to see my details,
Yes; so you don't care about your data; and down the road you won't care about they they deal with your children's too. So they collect your data, what if they start selling them ? I wonder will you have the same response.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that China wants to see my stuff is pretty irrelevant. .
...Unless you're Chinese, have any relatives in China, or know anyone who is the same. Then it's possible they might just disappear/end up in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep burning those mod points, idiots! You'll run out sooner or later. Meanwhile you are not silencing me. Get fucked.
.. in a "comprehensive, objective and evidence-based manner,"
"We'll TELL you what 'evidence' there is!"
The initiative would urge countries to oppose "mass surveillance against other states"
"Stop watching us! There's nothing to see! Go watch someone else!"
and call on tech companies not to install "backdoors in their products and services to illegally obtain users' data, control or manipulate users' systems and devices."
"We're the only ones who get to do that, you're not allowed!" Fuck you, China.
Re: (Score:2)
For once, I agree with you. The idea that the PRC should be leading a global initiative working towards data security is a joke.
If people do not wish to trust Cisco or other American companies, fine. But that does not make China any better!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They only need to convince the European Union, which are the ones who have given US companies the most trouble when it comes to data privacy. They're probably all pushovers, anyway. I say they approach France first, I bet they'll agree, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever noticed how some products you buy have all those funny logos on the back? JIS, NOM, EAC, CE etc.
It will be like that, services will be able to get certified and some places will make certification mandatory. Smaller countries will simply recognize the Chinese certification instead of creating their own.
This sort of thing is incredibly important for business, as the UK is about to discover when brexit hits and it can't CE mark products any more.
Sign-us up China (Score:2, Insightful)
comprehensive, objective and evidence-based manner
This is the type of investigation Australia called for in regards to covid-19. Yet China got butt-hurt and decided to initiate a trade war against Australian barley, beef and wine.
Maybe Australia should make it illegal to ship baby formula to China - see how that goes down.
Re:Everyone except themselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
China loves agreements like this, since China ignores their own agreements whenever it suits their needs but they expect and persuade others to obey.
No, they'll adhere scrupulously to it. After all, it's not illegally obtaining users' data if government access to that data and manipulation of their systems and devices is mandated by law. And they don't want to engage in mass surveillance against other states; that would be a nightmare to sift through. Targeted surveillance against other states isn't mentioned at all, though, and is much more efficient.
Sure it's bullshit coming from the PRC... (Score:3)
But they are doing it and this is the type of thing that could be looked at as leadership in countries where China has been building it's influence, like in Africa. This is an area where the US should be taking better positions and setting the example. Of course the NSA and other 3 letters would oppose such efforts but we really should be setting strong encryption standards for citizenry as a matter of National Security. Imagine the better place we would be in if the NSA used some of it's mass resources to secure both our private and public infrastructure like it helped with SELinux instead of trying to weaken it for the last 20 years. Lost opportunity in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US suggested there be international data security standards, everyone with two brain cells to rub together would suspect the NSA of drafting the standards to suit their own agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US suggested there be international data security standards, everyone with two brain cells to rub together would suspect the NSA of drafting the standards to suit their own agenda.
It doesn't matter what they suspect as long as the standards are open, and can be considered on their merit (or lack thereof).
Agree as long as... (Score:2)
:crying-eyes-laughing-emoji: (Score:2)
China is launching an initiative to set global standards on data security,
Who are the good guys again? (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU enacted that law specifically to keep the US from spying on Europeans. The anti-China comments here miss the point entirely that everyone is wary of the US, with good reason.
Not that I would get into bed with China either.
Re: (Score:3)
The European Union don't need China's standards, because they've set their own with the GDPR.
GDPR is a generic law, not a standard. It contains the basic principles (eg, that there must be certification bodies and supervisory authorities), but GDPR is not and never has been intended to be a standard of any sort.
Also, it is impossible to pinpoint a single cause or reason why GDPR exists. There is a good movie about the birth of GDPR, "Democracy: Im Rausch der Daten", https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5... [imdb.com]. I advise anyone who is interested in international law to go and watch it. "Stopping US from spying
Re: (Score:2)
The good guys is anyone who works to make data security better.
The best guys will be those who introduce liability to everyone who builds connected data systems and leaves exploitable bugs and also anyone who hoards those bugs to exploit them instead of reporting them to be fixed.
Right?
Just add our public key (Score:2)
It's a trap (Score:5, Insightful)
And that part about "illegal back doors"? Any back door that China installs in software will be declared legal. Period.
China is NOT the country to lead something like this. The US is pretty awful on this issue too, but China's worse. Come on Europe, could you please step up and lead a bit? We could really use a (relatively) trusted body to take the helm.
If the US maintains it's global leadership for the next 50 years, it won't be because of our strengths. It will be because all the other players are even weaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"opposing mass surveillance against other states" means that they don't want other countries spying on them or getting up in their biznezz. If a country chooses to monitor and oppress it's own people? Not a problem.
Isn't that the position of many Western countries too? Certainly all the FIVEEYES members like the US and UK. Spying on their own people is fine, they have "robust" legal systems and rules that definitely won't be ignored for 7+ years AFTER a whistleblower exposed them being broken.
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see the problem with that statement..
Its basically saying.. I won't piss in your soup, you don't piss in mine... But if we need to exchange/share data (commercial entities).. then there is a minimum standard on the security methodology we should use.
The US is (IN)FAMOUS for doing the classic "Do as I say, not as I do". (ie: Massive Hypocracy).. China is basically calling the US out on this and saying, what you do in your own country is your OWN business so long as it doesn't impact MY country. (h
Re: (Score:2)
First. NO. China is NOT HONEST about their oppression. According to the official line, they're working hard to improve the lives of several million Uighurs, complete with free lunches and summer camps where Uighurs get to sing happy songs about how good their life is und
Did i read that right.. (Score:2, Funny)
China.. to set.. data security rules?
BAHAHAHAHHAHHA
The US is losing out on leadership roles (Score:1)
All of this retreating from the world stage to focus inwards (and focus on infighting apparently) the US is losing initiative, losing influence, and will be forced to join and follow others or remain a secluded outcast like NK and Russia. Democracy will have less influence and less value and be less respected.
The US will have a harder time doing things its own way even at home as we are forced to respect regulations and policies that align with communist dictatorships as everything increasingly has to meet
Re: (Score:3)
"The US will have a harder time doing things its own way even at home as we are forced to respect regulations and policies that align with communist dictatorships as everything increasingly has to meet the standards set by them."
Not if countries and businesses decouple from China. The US could start by banning the NBA and Disney from doing business with China.
China should be treated similarly to North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if countries and businesses decouple from China.
And what is on offer in terms of incentives from the US to "decouple" from the largest market and the largest supplier in the world?
Seriously, what can US offer as a replacement?
"Democracy" on the wings of Tomahawk missiles, like it did to Iraq?
Building coalitions to sponsor international terrorism against a country, like it did to Syria?
Supporting a takeover of the state by mafiozi on a leash, like it does to my country?
More "Nixon shocks", like the ones they executed on their staunchest allies?
More "pay f
Re: (Score:3)
You seem confused. It's as if countries that are not major military powers somehow have to kowtow to "global leadership" from China or United States.
You can pick neither.
There are plenty of reasons to stop doing business with China, even if the United States offers no good alternative. Also, the entire idea that the US is extorting money out of NATO members is a joke.
Re: (Score:1)
You realize none of the reasons people want to blast China for are really reasons..
China wants you to play the game in their territory THEIR way.... So what.... its the same as the US.. The only difference.. now its a DIFFERENT set of rules and of course when the rules don't favor the US.. they get their panties in a bunch. (The US is the one that forced so much junk on to other countries on their moronic "war on drugs" and "war on terror" and "war on trafficking" and "war........." (a lot of these).. al
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially, your argument is:
US did bad things, I didn't like it.
It's OK for China to do similar things, but it won't be bad anymore because the US did it first.
At least be consistent.
Re: (Score:1)
First off, explain what "bad" things china is doing (FACTs, not belief, or retorich)? Yes, their is a
Second, I'm not saying the US did bad things so its ok for china to do similar things... I'm saying China is following the rule book as its written by the US.. You are beating up a "player" for having the gall to actually play the game using the same playbook. If you want to get mad.. get mad at the author of the book not the "player" for following the rules defined within. (hence my comments)
And again, sin
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You came into this discussion and asked a question like that?
Should we discuss the horrendous things they're doing in their own country, or should we go into the trouble they're causing elsewhere? It's extensive.
Re: (Score:2)
China wants to own and run everything. Are you okay with that?
Re: (Score:1)
The USA under Trump is looking inward. MAGA and all that rubbish. They did the same in the 1930's. The same protectionism and it ended up with much of the US Industrial base being unprepared for WW2.
'Build That Wall'.
Does that not sound familiar?
Walls are not only there to keep others out but they keep your people in. Make them feel guilty about buying shit that isn't made in the USA etc etc etc.
That is making companies and countries wary of doing business with the USA. They don't know who will be next to f
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that these aren't things that make companies wary of doing business in the US. They do not make doing business with or in the US riskier.
Re: (Score:1)
How.. please explain..
China isn't asking to be the custodian of anyone's data..(if that were the case, then I can could see your argument having SOME water)..
All they are saying is, we have a new "battlefield" lets define a set of rules of engagement (Similar to how we all have a set of rules around war and the declaration of which).. There actually are RULES around what constitutes actual war, how to declare, etc...
This is basically doing the same thing, except on the electronic battlefield... no one OWNS
Everything illigal (Score:1)
We should urge countries to oppose everything illigal then we're at it.
Why is it still okay to illigally rob a bank for example? Or illigally beat children?
The whole world should be more like Sweden where it's forbidden to be criminal: https://farm9.static.flickr.co... [flickr.com]
It's not April fools day (Score:1)