Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday January 31 2015, @01:32AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the tit-for-tat dept.

Technology companies that want to sell equipment to Chinese banks will have to submit to extensive audits, turn over source code, and build “back doors” into their hardware and software, according to a copy of the rules obtained by foreign companies already doing billions of dollar worth of business in the country. The new rules were laid out in a 22-page document from Beijing, and are presumably being put in place so that the Chinese government can peek into computer banking systems.

Details about the new regulations, which were reported in The New York Times today ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/technology/in-china-new-cybersecurity-rules-perturb-western-tech-companies.html?_r=1 ), are a cause for concern, particularly to Western technology companies.

In 2015, the China tech market is expected to account for 43 percent of tech-sector growth worldwide ( http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/in-2015-technology-shifts-accelerate-and-china-rules-idc-predicts/ ). With these new regulations, foreign companies and business groups worry that authorities may be trying to push them out of the fast-growing market. According to the Times, the groups—which include the US Chamber of Commerce—sent a letter Wednesday to a top-level Communist Party committee, criticizing the new policies that they say essentially amount to protectionism.

Story here.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday January 31 2015, @02:42AM

    by anubi (2828) on Saturday January 31 2015, @02:42AM (#139712) Journal

    At all!

    I just wish WE had the guts and fortitude to stand up to businesses for "hold-harmless" kind of talk and force them to either show their work or take *full* responsibility for it.

    This has nothing to do with copyright. An author has rights to his own work; one can publish a book which is completely out in the open, readable by all, yet retain copyright to it.

    * nb: I do not understand Chinese at all. I might as well try to read hen-scratching. *

    All this secrecy smacks like trying to get me to verbally agree to a contract written in Chinese and will be executed in a Chinese court, yet they have problems with my taking this contract to a Chinese friend to have it interpreted for me. Then the business works with lawmakers to make sure I cannot read the Chinese contract, yet the business and their law-maker friends think they can "hold harmless" themselves from telling me it does one thing while the Chinese court sees it otherwise.

    China, I salute you for standing up to them.

    Americans are just way too pussy to stand up to the suit-guys and their law-maker friends and demand accountability.

    That is why we have such a virus-ridden computing infrastructure.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:32AM

      by SuperCharlie (2939) on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:32AM (#139722)

      Didnt mean to post such a similar title.. sincere durrrr durrrp apologies.

      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday February 02 2015, @02:34AM

        by anubi (2828) on Monday February 02 2015, @02:34AM (#140182) Journal

        No prob! Done that myself more than once. ;)

        This response to that topic should be almost universal anyway....

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by SuperCharlie on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:26AM

    by SuperCharlie (2939) on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:26AM (#139721)

    With the insights and technical revelations the last few years about how most western governments, and particularly the US have shown they can not be trusted to do anything but create backdoors and spy on people, if *I* was China, I would demand no less. Hell, I salute them for at least being honest and upfront about it. All the whining you hear is probably the collective squeels from our alphabet soup agencies through their assorted technology pawns.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:57AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 31 2015, @03:57AM (#139727) Journal

      Still, once you have a situation where one government can demand a backdoor, just how long do you expect back-door free hardware to persist.
      Be careful what you wish for.

      As it is, the NSA has to intercept shipments of switchgear to install back doors. I'd rather have them do that than just telling
      the manufacturer to put in the backdoor. You know damn well the governments will never let them reveal the back door.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:21AM

        by anubi (2828) on Saturday January 31 2015, @04:21AM (#139736) Journal

        Everyone is demanding back doors. No accountability, or at least *for them*.

        At least the word is getting out that the peeping tom is at the window.

        The problem is that once that backdoor is implemented, even if one tries to keep it secret, it will eventually get out.

        I guess the deciding factor is a judgement call... if this backdoor is implemented, then it falls in the wrong hands, how much damage will be done?

        I could see where an untrustworthy communication network, rife with leaks and spoofs, could lead to the downfall of a nation.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @06:20AM (#139747)

    could the article be shortened (maybe) to:
    "Chinese demand same equipment delivered to western banks"?

    maybe this article is a re-write to make it seem as if the equipment delivered to western banks doesn't have back-doors and that the equipment manufacturer situated on american and subject to americans laws are surprised that the chinese know about the default back-doors?

    Aaaaannnndddd down goes the rubel ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31 2015, @07:00AM (#139756)

      Aaaaannnndddd down goes the rubel ...

      which is a good thing for russians

      something a lot of commonfolk (and so called "economists" it seems) are yet to grasp... a high demand for currency is usually a bad thing for a nation's economy

      keywords: balance of trade, deficit, surplus, imports, exports, currency manipulation, reserve notes, debt instrument...

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by mtrycz on Saturday January 31 2015, @12:41PM

    by mtrycz (60) on Saturday January 31 2015, @12:41PM (#139810)
    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday February 01 2015, @03:21AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday February 01 2015, @03:21AM (#139966) Journal

    Sounds like other Chinese dealings. The first deal or sell is a real good one. After that you will see the copies wrecking your business.

    Oh, and of course.. Papers Please! this is a such state after all.

    • (Score: 1) by boltronics on Sunday February 01 2015, @04:18AM

      by boltronics (580) on Sunday February 01 2015, @04:18AM (#139975) Homepage

      Better to need to keep papers on you in China, then require fingerprints on entry that is expected of all foreigner to the US. You're probably a US citizen so don't care about that.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday February 08 2015, @03:36AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday February 08 2015, @03:36AM (#142363) Journal

        Papers please! is more fitting to China considering the state of government there. Otoh, US seems to be on the road there too.

        • (Score: 1) by boltronics on Sunday February 08 2015, @04:54AM

          by boltronics (580) on Sunday February 08 2015, @04:54AM (#142376) Homepage

          In Hong Kong (where I've lived for 6+ months in total) I've never been asked for any identification. My spouse (originally from Hong Kong) has only ever been asked for papers once in her life, over a decade ago. Generally the police only request them to verify that people the mainland have authorization to be in Hong Kong (as many Chinese have migrated there illegally), so it's not really meaningful to westerners. Obviously requesting ID is useful in the event of observing a traffic accident or some such, but that goes for any country.

          Having papers to move between Hong Kong and the mainland is also not at all surprising, since Hong Kong is effectively like a different country (different laws, government, written language, spoken language, etc.).

          I hardly consider Hong Kong at least to be a surveillance state in any of these respects. Heck, on the card to fill out where you'll be staying, I just wrote "New Territories" (which makes up ~80% of Hong Kong) and immigration was fine with that. Compare the points on this list to entering US (which I refuse to visit due to the unreasonable and discriminative requirements):

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#Electronic_police_state [wikipedia.org]

          In Korea I read you may even require retina scans! My wife wanted to visit there but I said no f**k'in way.

          --
          It's GNU/Linux dammit!