Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

The U.S. Considers Ban on Exporting Surveillance Technology To China (usnews.com) 73

Posted by EditorDavid from the I'm-just-a-bill dept.
The South China Morning Post reports that the U.S. may be taking a stand against China. This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed a new bill that would "tighten export controls on China-bound U.S. technology that could be used to 'suppress individual privacy, freedom of movement and other basic human rights' [and] ordering the U.S. president, within four months of the legislation's enactment, to submit to Congress a list of Chinese officials deemed responsible for, or complicit in, human rights abuses in Xinjiang...

"The UIGHUR Act also demands that, on the same day, those individuals are subject to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, seizing their U.S.-based assets and barring them from entry onto U.S. soil."

Reuters notes that American government officials "have sounded the alarm on China's detention of at least a million Uighur Muslims, by U.N. estimates, in the northwestern region of Xinjiang as a grave abuse of human rights and religious freedom..." U.S. congressional sources and China experts say Beijing appears especially sensitive to provisions in the Uighur Act passed by the House of Representatives this week banning exports to China of items that can be used for surveillance of individuals, including facial and voice-recognition technology...

A U.S. congressional source also said a Washington-based figure close to the Chinese government told him recently it disliked the Uighur bill more than the Hong Kong bill for "dollars and cents reasons," because the former measure contained serious export controls on money-spinning security technology, while also threatening asset freezes and visa bans on individual officials. Victor Shih, an associate professor of China and Pacific Relations at the University of California, San Diego, said mass surveillance was big business in China and a number of tech companies there could be hurt by the law if it passes.

China spent roughly 1.24 trillion yuan ($176 billion) on domestic security in 2017 -- 6.1% of total government spending and more than was spent on the military. Budgets for internal security, of which surveillance technology is a part, have doubled in regions including Xinjiang and Beijing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The U.S. Considers Ban on Exporting Surveillance Technology To China More

The U.S. Considers Ban on Exporting Surveillance Technology To China

Comments Filter:

  • Cold War with China has begun (Score:3)

    by Way Smarter Than You ( 6157664 ) on Saturday December 07, 2019 @06:23PM (#59496160)
    The US is simultaneously applying hard pressure on China across numerous fronts: trade war, Hong Kong, WTO, Xuighurs, spying, trade with Iran, technology sales and transfer, visa limits on some Chinese leaders, financial limits on some Chinese leaders, running US navy through international waters claimed by China, continuing to support Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, engaging and then completely ignoring NK, and likely other stuff unknown to the public. It'll be interesting to see if and how long the Chinese can withstand this barrage across multiple fronts before they finally crack.
    • Probably quite a while. The Chinese government doesn't have a problem with cracking down on citizens brutally (see Tiananmen Square) and North Korea shows that a tyrannical state can continue to survive despite that brutality. They're large enough and have enough resources that they can be self-sufficient for the most part even if everyone stops trading with them.

      • The Economist sad view of the issue:

        There is little the West can do to persuade China to dismantle the camps in Xinjiang. Western governments have remonstrated, to no avail. America this month imposed sanctions on Chinese officials and businesses implicated in the mass internments, but the gesture was little more than symbolic. The Communist Party may be embarrassed, but it will not be badly hurt. The West may not be able to determine the fate of places such as Xinjiang, but it can at least help tell their stories.

        https://www.economist.com/lead... [economist.com]

    • Re:Cold War with China has begun, (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Saturday December 07, 2019 @06:44PM (#59496214)

      It'll be interesting to see if and how long the Chinese can withstand this barrage across multiple fronts before they finally crack.

      I submit that this line of reasoning is flawed. The USA would have been somewhat assured of success in the early 80s, when the USA's GDP was at least 10 times that of China.

      As of now, China is a major player in world affairs to the extent that the USA cannot field any 5G manufacturing concern now! Who would have thought this is possible?

      The Europeans and Russians largely scoffed at the USA's threats against Nord Stream; gas will be flowing pretty soon. Russia just began pumping gas to China [youtube.com], via the so called Power of Siberia pipeline This only confirms the fact that America is not as relevant as it used to be.

      All empires eventually collapse; America's hegemony is next, sadly.

      • Re:Cold War with China has begun, (Score:5, Informative)

        by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Saturday December 07, 2019 @07:43PM (#59496294) Homepage

        It'll be interesting to see if and how long the Chinese can withstand this barrage across multiple fronts before they finally crack.

        I submit that this line of reasoning is flawed. The USA would have been somewhat assured of success in the early 80s, when the USA's GDP was at least 10 times that of China.

        As of now, China is a major player in world affairs to the extent that the USA cannot field any 5G manufacturing concern now! Who would have thought this is possible?

        The Europeans and Russians largely scoffed at the USA's threats against Nord Stream; gas will be flowing pretty soon. Russia just began pumping gas to China [youtube.com], via the so called Power of Siberia pipeline This only confirms the fact that America is not as relevant as it used to be.

        All empires eventually collapse; America's hegemony is next, sadly.

        The British empire declined and became the United Kingdom - Still a world power, but no longer the greatest western power.

        The Soviet Union declined and became the Russian Federation - Still a world power, but no longer the greatest eastern power.

        The United States is in decline - Still the greatest western power, but less influential than it used to be.

        China has risen to become the greatest eastern power, and it's reach and influence is growing throughout the world.

        The European Union, if it can survive it's growing pains, is poised to become the next great western power.

        If europe continues to spend it's energy picking at the US it will miss it's chance to step up and lead... the world will be run by China.

        • and China is going Nazi Germany!

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          And it looks like the transfer of power will be relatively peaceful. The US is already pulling out as "leader" of many international organizations.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The UK isn't a world power. It likes to have delusions of grandeur and think it is, but it's not.

          The UK isn't even the biggest economy in Europe. Militarily it's fallen behind France. In terms of influence it threw much of that away by voting to leave the European Union, making it far less relevant and influential.

          If the UK does leave the EU then maybe British people will finally realize this as we get hammered in trade deals with much bigger, more influential countries that hold all the cards. Our desperat

          • I will be watching the gutting of the NHS with cynical amusement. We Americans love to piss on socialized medicine meanwhile ignoring the fact that the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is outrageous medical bills. So it seems we have a choice of extremes: free medical care that sucks or better medical care that is unaffordable for many. Call me a filthy collectivist but I'd rather have everyone have coverage, even if that means me and my family don't get as good of care. It's interesting that so
      • Hmm, I don't think 5G is the measure of super power status. And I disagree on Europe. They'll be lucky to not break up further over the next 20-30 years much less lead anything. Europe is a bunch of former world powers trying to regain their former glory by combining what's left of their strength. Not only is it not really working they can't afford to defend their borders and will freeze to death in Germany if the Russians turn off the gas. As far as the Russians sending had to China goes... it was at

        • Hmm, I don't think 5G is the measure of super power status.

          No, not directly. But America's inability to manufacture its own high-tech electronics in any meaningful quantity, (never mind its declining dominance in the development of high tech), is emblematic of its declining self-sufficiency, influence, and relevance throughout the world. Also, it's laughable to think that China cares much about "export controls on China-bound U.S. technology"; but if China turns off the taps and stops all Chinese electronics from getting into the US, America will be hit pretty hard

          • The Chinese can't afford to stop trade with us. Their economy would collapse. We represent 18% of their trade which is a huge chunk of their economy. (18% is what I keep reading, I don't have inside info from their finance ministry). Take that to 0 and they're fucked in a huge way. We would have more expensive toys we'd have to buy through intermediaries or other countries. The world is global. I don't know where everyone gets the idea China is this unstoppable invulnerable to basic economics laws su

            • These seem like valid points, but I have questions about one of them:

              We would have more expensive toys we'd have to buy through intermediaries or other countries.

              If the expensive toys originate in China, then how is the Chinese economy going to be hurt? And aren't there a lot of electronics products, (such as IC's), that are being made pretty much exclusively in China? Plus, what about the States' dependence on Chinese rare-earth metals? [reuters.com]

              Yes, a US trade embargo would hurt China's economy - but I think their growing interests in and trade with Africa and South America, plus trade with Russia and oth

              • A fine point which I had considered when I posted it but didn't have time to go into at that moment. Let's assume total 2 way end of trade for argument's sake but world is still global. US would change to buying some items from other countries. Initially prices would go up due to supply and demand until supply in other places could come up to speed but these items would not be China sources. China only items might be either not bought at all which could hurt some American companies, yes, or bought throu
      • Also, the US economy is currently about 3x the size of China's. It'll be harder now than when it was 10x so we should just not try? The 75 lbs dog should roll over for the 25 lbs dog? The 75 lbs dog may get bit a few times but it will flat out kill the 25 lbs dog every time. Why should we roll over? Carter told us our days were numbered. It was the infamous "malaise speech". Obama also told us to get used to decline and just die. Fuck that noise! If they want it, the Chinese and anyone else will ha

    • It'll be interesting to see if and how long the Chinese can withstand this barrage across multiple fronts before they finally crack.

      Crack... how? It's true that the US is doing a number of different things against China, but it's doing those different things for different reasons. Trump started the trade war because he thinks he's a great negotiator and claimed that he could get economic concessions from China. (Though the first tariff he applied was on solar panels, so he's probably mixing his motivations there.) If China "cracks" on that front it would be in the form of a more favorable trade agreement. If we're being generous we'll j

      • It's an onslaught across the board. I unfortunately can't find the link (it was a few lines in some random article 7 weeks ago, sorry), but a Chinese mouthpiece in one of their official newspapers even commented on it. I'm not making shit up, this is the Chinese government's view on it.
        • Okay? I didn't say that the US wasn't acting against China, it most certainly is, only that the US is doing so for a bunch of different disparate reasons. It's not a cohesive plan to attack China, it's just a bunch of things that we're doing.
          • Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I couldn't say either way for sure how well coordinated it is. I am not privy to that sort of inside policy decision making. If you are, it would be enlightening if you shared. Planned or not, the effect is the same. If I shot you, the bullet and your body don't care if I intended to or it was an aiccdent. You're still shot.
            • No, the effect is not the same. That was the point of my first post: a coordinated attack is one which is attempting to achieve a single objective. i.e.: That's a scenario where one country might "crack" and give in, or partially give in. Here we have a bunch of different stuff, with different objectives and ongoing separate disputes and negotiations for all of them.

              This is not a bad thing, these are separate issues and they need to remain separate. My fear, as I said, is that they'll be conflated togeth
              • I don't see anyone throwing HK under the bus. Congress passed a strengthened pro HK bill which trump signed a week ago without undue delay. That was followed up this last week with the pro Xuighur bill. Chinese leadership was reportedly pretty ticked off both times. If we wanted to trade our principles for cash those two bills were not the way to do it.
                • Well that's good. I don't see China buying our soybeans either, so we are safe from my example. If and when we do crack, however, I expect that it will look very much like conflating some or all of the issues together, and then trading principles for cash. Or, more accurately, a bunch of pundits will start talking about how those were never really our principles in the first place.

  • waste of time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by renegade600 ( 204461 ) on Saturday December 07, 2019 @06:23PM (#59496162)

    nothing to ban since china makes most of it anyway.

  • Should that not be "ban on importing"? (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday December 07, 2019 @06:37PM (#59496188)

    I mean, China is obviously years ahead in that area. Since the US is trying to go the same way as China has, I would expect that this tech gets imported, not exported....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      I would expect that this tech gets imported

      t.h.i.s.

    • Netflix and Google depends on Chinese technology. JPG-AVI>MPEG2>MPEG4,H264,now H265(50% smaller) with VC1 as the emergent winner. A quick look at Aliexpress tells me China has a near monopoly on H265, and oddly they have added face recognition inside the compression look.Are US airports using H265 gear? Just a matter of time when TV's will have to be junked AGAIN, for H265 and AV1 capability. That horse has already bolted.

  • No matter... (Score:2, Informative)

    by ElitistWhiner ( 79961 )

    Self-ban China. Stop buying into CHINA, ' made in China' and the CHINA biometric invasion.

    CHINA's Uighur encampment, organ harvest and murder are high crimes beyond moral turpitude. Unconscionable, unacceptable and inhumane.

    Vote with your greenback. Stop participating in China.

    Big Brother is not going to protect you, unless you like faceID coming to the U.S. of A.

  • However, a better method would be to ban production of these technologies altogether - then there wouldn't be anything to sell.

    • Absolutely. If we want once again to be a free country, we must forthwith stop the design, manufacture, and sale of instruments of totalitarian oppression. In a free country there is _no legitimate use_ for many of these tools.

      Now of course many people prefer safety over liberty. For them, there is no problem living in a totalitarian police state, so long as it doesn't touch them personally. I guess if you're from a bourgeois family and have both a small heart and a small mind, that's a tenable position. Bu

  • Ban all Chinese surveillance drones, phones, laptops, tablets, radios, tvs, cameras, and return all 5G technology postage due.

  • This is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, lived a long, full life, and become the ancestor of a species of superintelligent carnivorous terror-horses that threaten to become the planet's dominant species.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • They are our enemy ffs. Their hundred year plan calls for the complete subjugation of the US. They send spies into our military, government, schools and corporations. Their partner, Russia is fucking with our undersea cables and they have created a whole deprecate internet. THIS IS FUCKING WAR! Stop talking, stop trading, treat them as the enemy and shut them out. Better for another Cold War than a hot war or the culmination of the Trump Trade War

  • It has only ever been used for evil.

  • I thought they already had plenty to do with regulating Chinese toilets, so that you have to flush only once.

  • Viewed from a political angle, this bill isn't going anywhere. If it was passed by the house on a near party line vote, it'll go nowhere until after the elections. For whatever you feel about the US administration, the realities are that China has several problems internally. Those problems are well known, and the US's influence is limited, but the people figuring out the sanctions have some solid foundations on them. The article itself notes the sheer costs involved in both human terms and in money spe
  • That sounds like allowing technology to China with extra steps.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close