Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses China Government United States

US To Blacklist Eight More Chinese Companies, Including Drone Maker DJI (reuters.com) 115

Posted by BeauHD from the growing-list dept.
schwit1 shares a report from the Financial Times: The US Treasury will put DJI and the other groups on its Chinese military-industrial complex companies blacklist on Thursday (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), according to two people briefed on the move. US investors are barred from taking financial stakes in the 60 Chinese groups already on the blacklist. The measure marks the latest effort by President Biden to punish China for its repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities in the north-western Xinjiang region.

The other Chinese companies that will be blacklisted on Thursday include Megvii, SenseTimes main rival that last year halted plans to list in Hong Kong after it was put on a separate US blacklist, and Dawning Information Industry, a supercomputer manufacturer that operates cloud computing services in Xinjiang. Also to be added are CloudWalk Technology, a facial recognition software company, Xiamen Meiya Pico, a cyber security group that works with law enforcement, Yitu Technology, an artificial intelligence company, Leon Technology, a cloud computing company, and NetPosa Technologies, a producer of cloud-based surveillance systems. DJI and Megvii are not publicly traded, but Dawning Information, which is also known as Sugon, is listed in Shanghai, and Leon, NetPosa and Meiya Pico trade in Shenzhen. All eight companies are already on the commerce department's "entity list," which restricts US companies from exporting technology or products from America to the Chinese groups without obtaining a government license.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US To Blacklist Eight More Chinese Companies, Including Drone Maker DJI More

US To Blacklist Eight More Chinese Companies, Including Drone Maker DJI

Comments Filter:

  • Cold War II (Score:3, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @08:07PM (#62084795)

    Is this how we are fighting Cold War II? If so, it is a REALLY terrible strategy.

    • What's the correct strategy? Building up a huge stockpile of nukes?

      • Various acts that promote friends within their government instead of crazies.

        • Various acts that promote friends within their government instead of crazies.

          Do you mean the "make friends with China's leaders" plan that we have been trying (unsuccessfully) since the days of Richard Nixon?

          Or do you mean the "make sure the guys who make it to leadership are our friends" plan -like we tried in various south american and middle eastern nations with tragic results?

          Or do you have a different plan to suggest? (details, and specifics please...)

          • You know looking back the seemingly crazy choice of getting into a nuclear arms race and economically ostracizing the opponent actually has the best outcome. It worked against the soviets and as you said the alternatives have failed multiple times.

      • What's the correct strategy?

        Trade is mutually beneficial. It should not be weaponized over issues that have nothing to do with trade.

        If we use trade sanctions, we should use them for clear, realistic, achievable goals.

        The announced sanctions do nothing to help the Uyghurs and are likely counterproductive. If Xi backs down in the face of sanctions, he will lose face, so he will dig in his heels and possibly even expand the repression while nationalists cheer him on and demonize the Uyghurs as foreign pawns.

        Another reason the sanction

      • Weaponized drones

      • Re:Cold War II (Score:4, Funny)

        by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Thursday December 16, 2021 @01:53AM (#62085515)
        Teach them how to play football (or some other sport of your choice), then refuse to play football with them unless they change their ways.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      That's how US won the first one. Economic blockade. You can't get there from as intertwined of a global economy as we have today right away, but you can do a controlled decoupling in stages, with end goal of being state similar to first Cold War, and then just calmly waiting for the house of cards that is Chinese economy to fold on itself.

      As that one is way less self sufficient and far more naturally boxed in by geography than that of Soviet Union.

      So kindly explain why it's terrible this time around.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Is this how we are fighting Cold War II? If so, it is a REALLY terrible strategy.

      China's playing economic war. They don't want to get into a real military war - they're just not that militaristic. However, they are extremely capitalistic and thus have been basically waging a quiet economic war.

      Think of things like "belt and suspenders" programs which basically seek to bankrupt third world nations under the guise of "we're here to help". Build an unnecessarily flashy airport that services only 2 flights a we

  • Overplaying our hand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @08:10PM (#62084805) Homepage Journal

    We're a nation that trades. Our power is based on us being the center of world commerce, not on our political ideals or our ethical principles. The idea that we could wage a trade war with world's largest exporter, let alone a conventional war is ridiculous. As a nation we don't have the mettle to follow through with either, and our practical capabilities to do so are greatly diminished since the mid 20th century.

    All China has to do is ally with Russia to complicate any conventional warfare. And wait out any trade war for the next administration as we ping-pong between parties every 4 years. (yea, I predict the era of 2 two Presidents to be over. divisive politics will see to that)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And wait out any trade war for the next administration as we ping-pong between parties every 4 years. (yea, I predict the era of 2 two Presidents to be over. divisive politics will see to that)

      The US is headed for a second Civil War within the next four years regardless of the next president.
      • And with one side of the political spectrum having a virtual monopoly of privately owned firearms and an almost complete reticence of firearm ownership on the other it's not too difficult to see how this will play out.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And with one side of the political spectrum having a virtual monopoly of privately owned firearms and an almost complete reticence of firearm ownership on the other it's not too difficult to see how this will play out.

          How's that, with one side turning off the internet and the other side hopping around like Yosemite Sam trying to figure out what to shoot now that there's no social media to tell them who's evil?

        • I’ve seen Yall ‘Queda. Those tubby guys in jungle camo in the city would take a heart attack after jogging a block.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chill ( 34294 )

          You're delusional if you think there aren't a huge number of Democrats and left-leaning independents that own firearms.

    • Re:Overplaying our hand (Score:5, Insightful)

      by countach ( 534280 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @08:39PM (#62084895)

      The only reason China stands as the world's largest exporter, is that the USA is the world's largest importer. China would be crushed as the largest exporter if the largest importer decided to. If one wanted to crush them, one would do it exactly how they are doing it... start with the highest tech, highest margin products and work your way down. The US isn't suffering because they can't buy Huawai phones and telecommunications equipment. But China is. The US can keep buying cheap plastic Chinese crap, and yet decimate their economy by slowly extricating themselves from high tech, high margin Chinese products. Turn it from free trade to trade that benefits the USA. And since China doesn't respect the rulings of the WTO or other international arbiters, one could do it without seeming to be the bad guy.

      • People underestimate how under developed Chinas internal economy actually is - sure, the US pulling trade with China might cause a noticeable blip in the Chinese economy, but only until China builds up its internal market as a replacement...

        There is no way that the US can win this peacefully, they are always going to be overtaken by the Chinese economy - the restrictions the US are putting into place are conversely both impeding and aiding China at the very same time, as they are showing China where they ne

        • Shh. You're tugging on the techno-cons cognitive dissonance security blanket. . . They need to believe China is simultaneously bad, dangerous and pathetically weak.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Also, China has spent the last twenty years building up infrastructure and relationships with Asia and Africa because they recognized they were vulnerable to American trade aggression.

        • People underestimate how under developed Chinas internal economy actually is

          No matter how hard you strain, you can't turn that weakness into a strength. China's underdeveloped internal economy not only can't be fixed overnight, but it's also fundamental to their system of governance. If the people don't need the Party to merely be fed, as they do because China produces nowhere near enough food to feed its people, then they won't be so easy to control.

          Without the USA China would merely need to find other nations to be dependent upon. But where would they get their food? We're the on

      • Re: Overplaying our hand (Score:4, Interesting)

        by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @09:24PM (#62085001) Homepage
        That's a bit wrong headed. If the US wants to stop importing from China, high tech or not, they need to develop manufacturing elsewhere along with the skilled labor force to do so. That means bringing manufacturing home, but that will lead to massive inflation, rising wages domestically and a massive economic slowdown. The alternative is to find an alternative country with a massive skilled population that's capable of building our high tech goods. It doesn't exist. What you are seeing is a tectonic shift in the capitalists' ability to exploit cheap labor. Like an oil well running dry, cheap labor has vanished. What they want to do is force China back into a lower standard of living one way or another and China will likely refuse to accept that. At some point China can consume the goods they make for themselves(we are there now) as their economy doesn't require exponentially growing gains for a select few billionaires.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The US would suffer if it couldn't buy iPhones. iPhones are made in China, and while assembly can be moved elsewhere a lot of the components can only be sourced from China. The chips are fabbed in Taiwan too, and if push comes to shove China will make sure the US' supply from there is cut off.

        Then there are all the loans and investments China has made in the US. It would be a problem if those suddenly came due.

        China saw this coming and made sure it would cause anyone trying it at least an equal amount of pa

      • This was probably the very first supply chain problem due to the pandemic. There are some things we are very dependent on China for and if they decided to block them due to a trade war we would face some consequences. It's going to take years to start making rare earth materials in the USA. Just about every product made in the USA probably relies on at least some parts from China. A full scale trade war would not be one sided, both sides would suffer. It may be that China's shutting down of some of the

    • Re:Overplaying our hand (Score:4, Insightful)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @08:40PM (#62084897)

      We're a nation that trades.

      That's because our idiotic "leaders" tore down our manufacturing infrastructure for short term profits. We need to stop doing business with China, and rebuild our manufacturing base. We're not going nearly far enough in banning trade with China.

      • You realize that all global labor markets are interconnected, right? Rising standards of living and rising wages in China will result in rising wages in the US as well. Your enemy is not working people in China, it's the people who pit one group of workers against another.

        • Um... no. Rising wages for someone that provides services or makes products from you, means increase in cost of those goods and services for you. Meaning you making same salary, while having to pay more to buy things with it, AKA lower standards of living.

        • Rising standards of living and rising wages in China will result in rising wages in the US as well.

          The original theory, and the whole reason we started outsourcing our production capacity to China, was that China would become more like us as their prosperity increased, and the Communist Party would have no choice but to crumble under the weight of the general populace demanding more freedoms.

          That didn't (and can't) work. The Chinese Communist Party just embedded itself into all of the newly found wealth streams coming into Chinese companies (as was predicted), making Communism a stronger world power than

          • I don't think Democracy means what you think it means. The US is not a democracy. The US National Endowment for Democracy is mostly focused on subverting democracy abroad. Most "scientific" measurements of freedom or democracy are focused on economics, how free are the wealthy to do business? No "freedom" metrics measure upwards mobility, the ability of an individual to improve their life, access food, healthcare and higher education. No freedom metrics measure whether the policies that are very popular wit

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Agripa ( 139780 )

            I think those who made that decision in the US were naive. The Last Article [wikipedia.org] explains why under difference circumstances.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        We are trying trade reduction as a way to boost our domestic manufacturing in the UK right now. Trade with the EU has been reduced dramatically since January, and in decline for years before that.

        It's not going so well. Our manufacturers seem to be struggling due to loss of export markets, and lack of imports they need. There is a labour shortage too. Turns out that when we stop buying their stuff, they stop buying our stuff.

        You know how a lot of movies are now made with the Chinese market in mind? Or how C

    • Re:Overplaying our hand (Score:4, Funny)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @09:30PM (#62085009) Journal

      The United States power comes from the ideals that are embodied in the declaration of independence, that all have an equal right to find happiness. We are not agnostic traders, like the Dutch were. We are not opportunistic oppressors, like the British were.

      Think about history. When we fight wars to protect our freedoms, or the freedoms of others, we are successful. WW2, WW1, the civil war, the war of independence of course all come to mind.

      When we fight wars for political reasons, or where the people don't actually want to be 'liberated', then we are not so successful. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the Philippine wars.

      Of course, the US has things like slavery, but that weakened us. We get stronger when we want to make people free.

      • Re:Overplaying our hand (Score:4, Interesting)

        by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @10:04PM (#62085071) Homepage Journal

        Hold onto that romantic view. I think it is beautiful and inspiring. And any people who has lost all of the wonder and magic of their state religion is probably doomed as a nation.

        But the ideals that we believed the Founding Fathers held, and the way we believe we comported ourselves during the two most staggeringly tragic wars in human history. Well they aren't necessarily applicable in modern times. Maybe we should be, but we don't really automatically inherit the good that our forefathers have done and draw from it like an inherited bank account. We are judged by our own actions. How we as a nation interact with the world in trade and diplomacy. If we have the ideals that you claim, then I believe we ought to try living up to them first.

        Slavery was incredibly profitable and contributed a great deal of wealth that was invested into this nation's infrastructure and economic systems.

        • Overall, through time, we've come to embody the ideas of the declaration of independence more and more as a nation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Definitely. Like when the US failed to recognize the second independent nation in the western hemisphere, then invaded them, then held a referendum where if you wanted to vote yes you could just pick up a ballot, but if you wanted to vote no you had to ask the nice armed marine for one.

        And that's just getting started. The only ideal essential to US foreign policy is protect the US. And puppet dictators do that, or, if that's not possible, as much chaos as can be sown.

        • Why go to such a stretch to make the US look bad? Just say the US had slavery. That was obviously bad, and really bad.

          The point isn't that the US is "perfect" or some nonsense like that, merely that we get our strength from our principles (freedom of speech, freedom to find happiness, that no person is more deserving of happiness than any other). Our diplomacy skills are pitifully weak, and we don't have the stamina to dominate unwilling countries with a forced occupation.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            The OP was talking specifically about foreign policy. Also, you can say the US *had* slavery and then abolished it, a long, long time ago. But US foreign policy has continued to do nasty things right up to the present.

            "Strength from principles" is bullshit. The US is mediocre at upholding its principles domestically, and doesn't give a shit about them internationally. Most countries are like that, but Americans like to pretend they're different without having the slightest idea what's done in their name.

            • The OP was talking specifically about foreign policy. Also, you can say the US *had* slavery and then abolished it, a long, long time ago. But US foreign policy has continued to do nasty things right up to the present.

              Strawman. The rest of your post also misses the point. I'll politely say it again for you.

              The point isn't that the US is "perfect" or some nonsense like that, merely that we get our strength from our principles.

      • Ahahaha! So funny! Irony is easy to miss on slashdot; it took me a while to realise you were being ironic.

        • No irony.

          • Okay, you just live in a different universe to me.

            • The point is: if we follow the principals in the declaration of independence, we are stronger than we don't. It's a simple point.

              • The point is: if we follow the principals in the declaration of independence, we are stronger than we don't. It's a simple point.

                Yes, of course, friend. But the United States have never managed to follow the principals as written in the Declaration of Independence, not even to its own citizens. Not for a single minute.

                When it comes to international relations, the United States has always put its own interests first, regardless of the lives, liberties, or happiness of the peoples of other nations.

                If anybody is to honour the maxim that all people must enjoy equal rights, the interests of the nation (any nation) must not be taken int

                • The closer we get, the more power we have. The farther we get, the less power we have.

                • But the United States have never managed to follow the principals as written in the Declaration of Independence, not even to its own citizens. Not for a single minute.

                  Are you measuring using a step function where anything less than 100% equals 0%?

                  If you're saying that the US has never managed to achieve 100.00000% compliance with every single word of the Declaration of Independence then you are correct. But the compliance level is certainly not 0.00000% either. If we view the Declaration of Independence as a goal, not a claim of what had already been achieved, the US has moved generally in the direction of that goal. There are certainly disagreements along the way and th

                  • I'm not really sure 'step functions' work in this context. Let's take, for instance, an ethical commitment - a vow, e.g. of celibacy, as in "I vow never to have sex again." But I actually have sex, on average once a day, on average for ten minutes. Am I celibate? No. Is my vow broken just 0.69%? No. Am I 99.3% celibate? No. When the declaration was made, there was widespread slavery: This is the most obvious and well-used example of how the declaration was not sustained - not for a single minute. Any fo

      • That's cute.

        The US' power comes from two places, interdependence and our massive military that we throw around at every opportunity... and which proves we don't believe in any of that freedom shit, as if the way we treat our own population including our economic race to the bottom didn't prove that already. Or how about the War On Some Drugs has done unmeasurable harm not just here at home but also in Mexico and Colombia in particular, as well as a number of others? Let's not pretend that the USA is some sh

        • Or how about the War On Some Drugs has done unmeasurable harm not just here at home but also in Mexico and Colombia in particular, as well as a number of others?

          Yeah, how well has that gone?

          The point is that when we follow the principles in the declaration of independence, we have more power, when we don't, we have less power. We aren't like the British, who managed to dominate by playing one faction off another. Instead we sit around telling people to "educate women."

          Our military is fully volunteer. When we tried to force people into the military, it got weaker.

          • Yeah, how well has that gone?

            That depends on what your metrics are. By mine, it's been a disaster. By authoritarians seeking to expand their influence, it's been a gold mine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Did I miss your sarcasm tag? Did the context make it Funny? Or was it a sock puppet?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Imagine being so fundamentally ignorant of reality as to think that there's any chance of Russia allying with China. "Yes, we would like to ally ourselves with the nation we consider the greatest geopolitical threat. The nation that has been quietly subverting our Far East for last three decades, that forced us to cede territory to them in Far East already once in last two decades and is demanding we cede more, the nation that is openly stealing anything and everything technological they can get their hands

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Last part unclear. Maybe you mean "the era of two parties"?

      (Lenin's Bolsheviks showed how to divide and conquer, but Stalin really ramped it up. GQP and Trumplicans are just copycats. (I sort of miss the Republican Party. Even Nixon's GOP was better than this.))

      • I find it more likely that in the short term we'll have two parties but they'll be at each other's throats each election cycle, than I believe our institutions can adapt to a broader coalition of many small parties. We kind of got a sniff of this coming with the Tea Party movement. And for the most part many in the GOP embraced the tea party as a convenient way to get votes rather than take any of them all that seriously. 10 years later and we added additional populists factions that must be appeased, rathe

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Thanks for clarifying.

          My take is similar. In a winner-take-all system there are only two stable equilibrium positions. Two balanced competitors or one constant winner. The Democratic Party has never figured that out, but just sort of taken it for granted that "You win some and lose some." That weak attitude mostly worked okay as long as the voters took up the slack and tended to favor the previous losers, but now the former Republican Party has lost its capacity to compete on the even playing field, and onc

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      The idea that we could wage a trade war with world's largest exporter, let alone a conventional war is ridiculous.

      France was Germany's largest trading partner before both world wars. Germany's had to go to war in both cases or face a deteriorating economic and financial situation which would lead to internal political strife.

      As a nation we don't have the mettle to follow through with either, and our practical capabilities to do so are greatly diminished since the mid 20th century.

      US capabilities have not decreased, and have even increased, but the change has been in relative capabilities; China is catching up. The US is in the position of increasing military expenditures in an attempt to stay on top, which is what usually happens when one great power overtakes another, ho

  • Ironically, the video I posted earlier today in a Slashdot comment about deforestation was shot on a DJI Mini 2 (weighs less than 250 grams so it doesn't require FAA licensing). It's really an incredibly good drone at a very good price.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • The drone appears good and steady, but the camera appears to suck. In the first scene (river), it seems to have problems deciding on an exposure setting or something like that and the result is that the video has a flicker to it.

      • I think this may be due to the props interfering with the light source. It’s a problem inherent to drones that have props too close to the camera.

        • So IOW it's a crap drone with a lame problem that was solved by hobbyists a decade ago or whatever with the dead cat design.

          Do DJI drones also still have to do the phoning home shit before you can fly?

          • The Mini is DJI’s entry level model. Most flagship cell phone cameras do exactly the same thing in similar lighting conditions (caused by passing under the tree branches, as the OP later replied), and they don’t fly.

            DJI also makes higher end stuff that literally shoots cinematic quality aerial footage, but you’ll have to open your wallet a bit wider.

            • I take it then that they still have this dependence on internet access and blessings from DJI before you can fly? Since you didn't address that point.

              • Blame Apple for that one. They’re the company that normalized the idea of products which are a brick until you’ve gotten their blessing to use them. It’s not really fair to single out DJI, since there are now numerous products which are no different in that regard.

      • That's from the sun flickering through the trees. It was an "artistic" choice on that shot shooting with the sun coming into the lens in that way. Also YouTube compressed the video in a way that sucks, and I can see artifacts around the edges of objects. I can assure you the original footage has none of that. I have a hunch that for channels with small numbers of subscribers and view counts, they compress video more than for popular channels.

  • I'll need 20 feet of garden hose and a pastrami sandwich. Sorry, couldn't resist the reference to the TV show.

  • It is 2021 time to change.

  • they missed their payment to Biden.

  • Slashdot is full of political and economic analysts and strategists nowdays.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close