Connect with us

Asia

European and Chinese Pressures are Squeezing Silicon Valley, Threatening a Global ‘Splinternet’

Published

on

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2018 – The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation is raising the danger of the “splinternet” syndrome, as top tech companies prioritize international standards over American ones, warned experts at a June 28 event of the Federalist Society.

Officials from Google, Microsoft, and cybersecurity company Endgame addressed growing cybersecurity concerns that international industries serve to America’s national security, and not that of Europe.

Additionally, tech companies have also been upset about a new California data protection law, signed June 28, that requires companies to allow consumers to opt out of data collection.

Panelists warned that the law has the potential to alter a company’s entire business model surrounding revenue from data collection. The legislation has many similarities to the GDPR, in effect since May 25, that imposes heavy regulations on user data collection of EU residents.

The worrisome prospect of a ‘splinternet’ to the global internet

Andrea Limbago, representative of cybersecurity company Endgame, warned that new international regulations like the GDPR are moving the internet “more towards the ‘splinternet’ versus the global internet.”

Countries’ different privacy demands makes the internet more fractured and causes problems for the tech industry, she said. GDPR mandates and the idea of cyber sovereignty for government access to data “are directly in conflict,” Limbago continued.

She instead touted “cyber sovereignty,” referring to the concept that a government should have control over internet usage, access, and services within their own country, from the technological side to political.

Because GDPR applies to not only EU companies, but to any company that engages with EU online users, rules established by the GDPR potentially interfere with another country’s ability to collect data on their online servers if that data belongs to an EU online user.

Which international norms are likely to prevail?

In America, outrage over how American companies store user data recently bubbled over the boiling point in Congress with additional revelations about whether Facebook allowed for the storage of consumer data on devices manufactured by the Chinese telecom equipment company Huawei.

Huawei has well-known ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

According to Limbago’s argument, while the GDPR pushes for protections of the individual, such as the right to be forgotten, other countries–such as China– could claim “cyber sovereignty” and enact laws that demand a company storing data on its land or of its people to provide that data regardless of an individual’s consent.

“If our tech or government in favor of democracy is not pushing forth these norms, others will push forward their own norms,” Limbago said, advocating for the U.S. government to enact firm, democratic rules of the road for the international cybersecurity space.

Google and Microsoft defend an increasingly beleaguered internationalism

When asked about how Microsoft and Google are responding to the flap over Facebook and Huawei, neither Google nor Microsoft expressed a desire to pull out of international agreements, despite legal complications that may arise.

Microsoft representative Angela McKay defended the practice of buying and partnering with other companies–including international companies–claiming it is good for competition in the marketplace. Managing Microsoft’s supply chain is a “way to use market forces to increase security over time,” McKay said.

Google representative David Lieber agreed with McKay. Lieber said that Google has many international partners within the supply chain, but looks to new methods of reducing the national security threat that supply chains can cause.

“One of the ways to reduce risk in a supply chain is to reduce complexity,” Lieber said.  Regarding data storage, he suggested examining the infrastructure that stores the data. For Google Cloud services, “The servers that reside in those data centers storing Google account data are custom designed. They have a stripped down operating system,” he said, which can reduce the risk of cybersecurity threats.

New international pressures on Silicon Valley could overcome tech companies’ resistance

However, former National Security Agency General Counsel Stewart Baker raised concerns over how the pressures Silicon Valley faces from international regulations could overpower pressures from the U.S. government.

According to Baker, European policies such as GDPR are imposing “massive fines and liability” on tech giants. Silicon Valley is pressured to comply with international regulations while resisting American regulations.

“Frankly, it’s just easier to regulate it if you don’t have an industry of your own,” Baker said. “[The Europeans] don’t and so they’re happy to beat up big tech from the United States.”

He explained tech giants must cooperate with laws in Russia and China or face being banned in the countries, whereas in the U.S., the companies gain leverage by hiring lobbyists and massive numbers of employees, and thus “don’t mind fighting the U.S. government.”

Rekindling fears of foreign interference in the political space, Baker accused Silicon Valley of allowing European hate speech laws to undermine the free speech of Trump supporters.

“When they are told to eliminate hate speech online by the Europeans,” Baker said, “they just don’t have any trouble agreeing that hate speech is pretty much anything that Trump voters say–and finding ways to disadvantage it in subtle and unsubtle ways.”

(Photo of the Federalist Society event by Heather Heimbach)

 

China

FCC Orders China Telecom to Stop Providing Services in the U.S. Over National Security Concerns

The move is in line with FCC’s tough posture on national security risks emanating from China.

Published

on

FCC meeting Tuesday included reasons for revoking China Telecom authorizations.

WASHINGTON, October 27, 2021The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to revoke the operating authorizations of China Telecom’s U.S. subsidiary, effectively ending its ability to provide services in the country.

The company had initially challenged the process of revoking its authorizations that started last year under the Donald Trump presidency, but lost in court.

The FCC found that China Telecom Americas’ ties to the Chinese government raises “significant national security and law enforcement risks” to U.S. communications. The telecom must discontinue any services within sixty days after the order is released.

The FCC’s analysis concludes that “the present and future public interest, convenience, and necessity” is no longer served by allowing the company’s operations in the U.S. The commission found that China Telecom Americas is “subject to exploitation, influence, and control by the Chinese government and is highly likely to be forced to comply with Chinese government request without sufficient legal procedures subject to independent judicial oversight.”

The order also found that the company’s conduct toward the commission demonstrates “a lack of candor, trustworthiness, and reliability that erodes the baseline level of trust that the Commission and other U.S. government agencies require of telecommunications carriers.”

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel praised the vote, calling the decision to stop China Telecom “ an important and necessary step” to protecting U.S. communications infrastructure.

“This is not a decision we make lightly. It has support from each of my colleagues. It has support across the federal government,” she said. Continuing to allow China Telecom Americas to operate in the U.S. “could lead to real problems with our telecommunications networks through surveilling information, misrouting traffic, or disrupting service,” she added.

Revocation in-line with FCC focus on weeding out threats

The vote to block China Telecom’s services also comes as the FCC fields comments about its proposal to blacklist products and services that pose national security threats.

The U.S. government is also responding to China’s influence over digital services. In July, the Biden administration formally accused the Chinese government of hacking Microsoft’s email system. Digital policy experts have raised concern about how China’s use of digital tools threatens human rights agendas and democracy around the world.

Last June, the permanent subcommittee on investigations released a report finding the Chinese government engages in cyber efforts against the U.S. and may use telecommunications carriers to interfere with U.S. network systems.

The ban on China Telecom follows a Canadian order to ban another company — China Mobile — from operating in the country, citing similar national security concerns. The company, which had an agreement to resell services of telco giant Telus, was told in August that it couldn’t continue operations. The company has since filed an appeal in the federal court.

Continue Reading

China

Hytera and Huawei Respond to FCC Blocking Chinese Equipment as U.S. Players React

Companies, industries, and associations chime in on FCC equipment blacklist proposal.

Published

on

Photo of Qingzhou Chen, president and CEO of Hytera

WASHINGTON, September 21, 2021 – Hytera, a company with ties to China that has been the subject of a national security blacklist proposal and whose partners have vouched for its innocence, said Monday that its United States radio equipment is being unfairly maligned.

Meanwhile, several key industry trade groups – including the leading wireless industry and consumer technology associations – urged a lighter-touch approach to “compliance challenges” involving Chinese companies, saying that under hardline Federal Communications Commission rules, burdens “may be passed on to consumers.”

But other U.S. advocates aren’t satisfied and want even stricter rules by the FCC to weed out alleged threats in America’s networks.

Hytera says that is has been unfairly targeted by the FCC

Hytera US, a supplier of radio equipment to emergency first responders, said in a submission to the FCC on Monday that it has been unfairly targeted because of confusion over the FCC’s authority in its blacklist, which is a product of Congress’ Secure Networks Act of 2019.

The FCC in March proposed a list of equipment and services from certain vendors from which to revoke or to deny future equipment approvals due to the “unacceptable risk” to the country’s national security. Included in the list is video surveillance and telecommunications equipment from Hytera, as well as equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, Hangzhou Hikvision, and Dahua. Part of its process is to ask the industry for comments on its proposal.

Hytera said in its submission Monday that its radio equipment does not connect to the internet or otherwise can’t be compromised by a foreign government. And it argued Monday that the FCC only has authority to blacklist certain equipment, not paint whole entities as threats.

Hytera has said that its competitors in the radio equipment space have allegedly been using this narrative to paint it as a risky company to deal with, which has resulted in Hytera dealers suffering “greatly, losing deals, being barred from bidding for projects, being maligned.”

Over the past two weeks, clients and dealers of Hytera, including Diversified Communications Group and Alpha Prime Communications, have criticized the FCC for Hytera’s inclusion on the list.

Hytera asks for clear distinction between radio equipment and broadband

Hytera is recommending the FCC make the distinction clear to the public and to specifically clarify that the blacklist “only includes equipment and services providing broadband service having a connection speed of at least 200 [kilobits per second] in either direction.”

Diversified and Alpha Prime have argued that Hytera radio equipment does not transmit data over the internet and so cannot be a threat under the FCC’s rules.

In a letter accompanying its submission, Hytera US vice president of sales Thomas Wineland said the FCC’s list has “destroyed our dealers’ ability to sell Hytera. Even if they can convince their customers that the two-way radios they plan to buy are not on the Covered List, the customers, in turn, answer to their bosses.

“They tell the dealer they ‘just can’t take the risk’ that the FCC will demand that Hytera equipment be removed and replaced,” he said. “They see Hytera’s name on the Covered List and choose a different manufacturer.

“Certainly this anti-competitive impact in the two-way radio marketplace was not what was contemplated in creating the Covered List,” Wineland continued. “Hytera US is a good citizen in each of its communities. It does not market broadband equipment in the US. A clarification that the Covered List reaches only broadband equipment would give Hytera the ability to neutralize the Covered List’s anti-competitive impact and allow the free market to operate.”

Huawei says FCC hasn’t shown proof its equipment is a threat

In its own submission on Monday, Huawei said the FCC has allegedly shown no evidence of a threat from its equipment, and its decision makes little sense on a cost-benefit analysis.

“The Commission has no evidence that Huawei has violated any of these rules,” the submission said. “Huawei’s equipment has been recognized by independent third parties, world leading carriers, major enterprise and industry customers as being of the highest technical quality. The identity of a manufacturer, by itself, cannot rationally be connected to any of the purposes of the equipment authorization rules.”

Huawei is one of the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturers. It supplies equipment all over the world, with part of its allure being its relatively low cost.

“The rules would impose substantial costs on carriers, end-users, distributors, suppliers, and resellers of Huawei equipment,” the company said. “Revoking existing equipment authorizations and prohibiting new ones would require these United States entities to divert limited resources, threaten service quality, and increase the cost of service, without equivalent benefits.”

The company also argued that the FCC is exceeding its authority by proposing to prohibit the “importation, marketing, or sale of a company’s products based on the identity of the manufacturer without regard to the technical characteristics of a particular product.”

On the proposal, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said the commission, “through its current equipment authorization process, continues to approve for use in the U.S. thousands of applications from Huawei and other entities deemed national security threats.

“The FCC has approved more than 3,000 applications from Huawei alone since 2018…We are launching this proceeding with a simple and important goal in mind—to protect America’s communications networks and, in turn, our national security.  The rules we propose are simple: equipment from entities that pose a national security risk will no longer be eligible for FCC approval.”

Industry associations say list could have ‘unintended consequences’

A number of associations that represent the broadband and wireless industries said in a combined submission on Monday that there could be “unintended consequences” with the proposal, including difficulty in implementation, harm to American consumers, and weaker supply chains.

Those groups include the ACT – The App Association, Consumer Technology Association, the Council to Secure the Digital Economy, the USTelecom broadband association, the Internet Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the CTIA.

The CTIA said the FCC should consider more tailored approaches, including addressing “compliance challenges” and observe the costs and benefits of the proposed changes, including “burdens that may be passed on to consumers.”

The proposal “extends far beyond national security concerns, contemplating sweeping regulatory oversight of the cybersecurity features of the connected devices and systems that will drive the 5G future and beyond,” the submission added.

“Cybersecurity is best addressed through public-private partnerships and flexible, risk-based solutions, not prescriptive mandates,” it said. “Rather than duplicating the ongoing work of its federal partners, the Commission should support industry-led efforts, promote the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s leadership on voluntary and flexible guidance for [internet of things] security, and look to the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council for input.”

China Tech Threat, Blue Path Labs press FCC for more

China Tech Threat, a research institution that focuses on threats from China, and Blue Path Labs, an organization that studies China and that has clients in the federal government, filed a joint submission Monday recommending the commission broaden the list and said all information technology emanating from China is “vulnerable to that government’s intrusion.”

The submission recommends adding to the list laptop manufacturer Lenovo and memory chip maker Yangtze Memory Technologies.

“The FCC has made a good start to propose prohibiting equipment authorizations from 5 Chinese military aligned companies, but there are many more entities operating in the US which pose an unacceptable national security risk,” the submission said.

“The FCC needs to apply these restrictions to all the equipment from vulnerable Chinese government owned and military aligned entities which operate in the U.S. today, as described by the US- China Economic and Security Review Commission, the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List, and the Department of Defense list of Communist Chinese Military Companies (CCMC).”

Co-founder of China Tech Threat, Roslyn Layton, told Broadband Breakfast following Diversified Communications plea that the ban list isn’t about Hytera per se, but what the Communist party in China requires of its companies.

Continue Reading

China

Another Company Joins Diversified in Criticizing FCC for Hytera Blacklist

Expert says the issue is about what Hytera could be compelled to do by the Chinese government.

Published

on

Roslyn Layton of China Tech Threat

WASHINGTON, September 14, 2021 – Alpha Prime Communications said Tuesday the Federal Communications Commission’s addition of Hytera on a list of national security threats is threatening its customers who rely on it for daily communications.

The FCC had designated Hytera, a Chinese manufacturer of radio equipment, as a blacklisted company in March as part of the Secure Networks Act. But on September 7, a client of Hytera, Diversified Communications Group, said the agency erroneously lumped the company with other Chinese firms on the list.

On Tuesday, Illinois-based Alpha Prime, which is a Hytera dealer to schools, small businesses and manufacturers, joined Diversified in condemning the decision to add Hytera to the national security threat list. “This far reaching ban threatens many of our customers day to day communications and safety,” Alpha Prime’s general manager John Hickey said in a letter to the FCC.

“One of our larger logistics companies will need to spend about $100,000 to replace their radios that have worked well and required little or no service,” Hickey added. “Please do not paint us and Hytera with a sweeping ban when you consider your decision in this matter.”

Hickey said his company began working with Hytera when Motorola began raising prices on its radios, and said the Chinese company has been “reliable and sturdy” and “provide a value for the price charged.”

The FCC and the White House have been working to tame any emerging threatens from China, including the Biden administration signing an executive order banning investments in Chinese companies and the FCC introducing a suspension of granting licenses to companies with links to the Communist government, which has been accused of espionage.

Security list function more to do with being under spell of Communist government

Roslyn Layton, co-founder of China Tech Threat, a research institution that studies threats from China and proposes policy solutions, said the issue isn’t about Hytera per se, but what the Communist party requires of its companies.

She explains that the Chinese National Intelligence Law that came into force in 2017 “asserts China’s sovereignty over the internet and its ability to acquire any data on any Chinese made device anywhere in the world for any reason at any time.” Similarly, she noted that under China’s espionage law, Chinese companies must comply with state spying without warrant, due process or judicial review.

“So Hytera may have never done anything wrong, but it is not independent of the Chinese government and cannot reject the Chinese government’s demand,” she said.

While Diversified said its radio devices from Hytera don’t connect to the internet, Layton charged that an examination of Hytera products shows that “many of their devices connect to the internet and collect data.” She also expressed concern about Hytera’s products being used for public safety and emergency services, which poses additional risks to American health and safety.

Experts concerned about China’s data collection possibilities

Social media application TikTok, which was made by Chinese company ByteDance, is one of the world’s most popular applications. But its rise to prominence is concerning experts who say that the company is collecting a vast trove of personal data on American users, which could be used to fashion advanced artificial intelligence to further the Communist government’s aims.

The experts, who were hosted by the Federalist Society earlier this month, were concerned that the companies could be compelled to send the data to the government and that Washington was falling behind on stemming the data flow.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending