National security comes first in IT considerations

[TaiShang]

National security comes first in IT considerations

By Wang Wenwen

Chinese authorities in charge of government procurement responded to Apple iPads and MacBook laptops being "removed" from its July procurement list on Thursday.

According to the official source, these products failed to be listed because Apple Inc hadn't offered related documents to the authorities before the deadline. It is not a government ban that crossed these products off the list.

Whatever the exact reason, security looms larger than ever when it comes to government procurement.

In 2013, the leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden sounded an alarm bell about the US security threat faced by countries all over the world, including China.

Data shows that cyber attacks on China's key organizations in sectors such as the military, scientific research and finance have mainly come from the US.

According to Mei Xinyu, a trade expert from the Ministry of Commerce, many countries have become wary of US IT products since the Snowden revelations.

Recent exposures of loopholes in iPhone have raised more concerns about information security in China. Although this time, Apple being "banned" is probably just a piece of fake news, there is still no guarantee that similar cases won't stand in the way between China and the US. In fact, the US still insists that products from Chinese IT companies such as ZTE and Huawei can't be trusted.

Many observers of Sino-US relations have expressed concerns over risks of conflicts in cyberspace between the two. First of all, they should have similar ideas on cyberspace and avoid the risk that both sides will lose out. Meanwhile, as China defends its own national security, it should also convince other countries of its strategic measures in governing cyberspace.

On the other hand, there is a clear factor of commercial opportunism. The fact Apple products are not on the government procurement list is perhaps good news for domestic brands, as they can take this opportunity to seize more market share from their US rivals.

But since there is still a large gap between Chinese companies and their US rivals in terms of IT operations and the research and development of IT products, and given the Chinese people's fascination about the thriving innovation of American IT goods, domestic brands still need to put more effort into convincing the consumers.

 

[Jlaw]

Every article be it western or Chinese articles always mention this
"But since there is still a large gap between Chinese companies and their US rivals in terms of IT operations and the research and development of IT products,..."

Chinese companies have to start somewhere. With this ban, it's a chance of a lifetime for the Chinese IT companies to improve on the products and become a major force in IT.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

National security comes first in IT considerations

By Wang Wenwen

Chinese authorities in charge of government procurement responded to Apple iPads and MacBook laptops being "removed" from its July procurement list on Thursday.

According to the official source, these products failed to be listed because Apple Inc hadn't offered related documents to the authorities before the deadline. It is not a government ban that crossed these products off the list.

Whatever the exact reason, security looms larger than ever when it comes to government procurement.

In 2013, the leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden sounded an alarm bell about the US security threat faced by countries all over the world, including China.

Data shows that cyber attacks on China's key organizations in sectors such as the military, scientific research and finance have mainly come from the US.

According to Mei Xinyu, a trade expert from the Ministry of Commerce, many countries have become wary of US IT products since the Snowden revelations.

Recent exposures of loopholes in iPhone have raised more concerns about information security in China. Although this time, Apple being "banned" is probably just a piece of fake news, there is still no guarantee that similar cases won't stand in the way between China and the US. In fact, the US still insists that products from Chinese IT companies such as ZTE and Huawei can't be trusted.

Many observers of Sino-US relations have expressed concerns over risks of conflicts in cyberspace between the two. First of all, they should have similar ideas on cyberspace and avoid the risk that both sides will lose out. Meanwhile, as China defends its own national security, it should also convince other countries of its strategic measures in governing cyberspace.

On the other hand, there is a clear factor of commercial opportunism. The fact Apple products are not on the government procurement list is perhaps good news for domestic brands, as they can take this opportunity to seize more market share from their US rivals.

But since there is still a large gap between Chinese companies and their US rivals in terms of IT operations and the research and development of IT products, and given the Chinese people's fascination about the thriving innovation of American IT goods, domestic brands still need to put more effort into convincing the consumers.

I agree that national security is important, and I think in limited circumstances, it is justified to be wary of foreign products. That said, given how difficult it is to separate government from corporations in China, it's easy to see how a "government" restriction on foreign products could turn into a nationwide restriction. This, of course, is playing with fire, and if these restrictions get out of hand, they will invite retaliation.

 

[Beidou2020]

I agree that national security is important, and I think in limited circumstances, it is justified to be wary of foreign products. That said, given how difficult it is to separate government from corporations in China, it's easy to see how a "government" restriction on foreign products could turn into a nationwide restriction. This, of course, is playing with fire, and if these restrictions get out of hand, they will invite retaliation.

Oh please do retaliate. Then we will have the perfect excuse to ban pretty much every Western company from the Chinese market and give our domestic companies access to the massive domestic market.

West is playing with fire messing with China in a market access war. Chinese market is already a massive consumer market and growing rapidly. As the years go by, Chinese market will be bigger than the US and EU combined.

By sanctioning China in any way, shape or form, the West is basically shutting its companies out of the Chinese market.....permanently.

Be careful who you pick your fights with boy.

 

[TaiShang]

I agree that national security is important, and I think in limited circumstances, it is justified to be wary of foreign products. That said, given how difficult it is to separate government from corporations in China, it's easy to see how a "government" restriction on foreign products could turn into a nationwide restriction. This, of course, is playing with fire, and if these restrictions get out of hand, they will invite retaliation.

The problem is, these restrictions are themselves retaliatory. So, if there is counter-retaliation, then, it will develop into a vicious cycle. Hope it does not happen.

We hope that the US stop there with its sanctions already placed on various Chinese industries/entities and hence does not force China into further action.

Certainly, the Chinese action involves all critical industries, which is a considerable portion of economy. Hotels, on the other, will remain free whatever software they wish to use.

When Bush blocked CNOOC, or when Obama blocked the solar energy energy (or wind?) farm, the US was already playing with fire. Looks like China did not simply put its head on the chopping block and rather retaliated.

With Chinese companies equally powerful, I wish a level playing field for any industry (save critical ones) regardless of nationality.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The problem is, these restrictions are themselves retaliatory. So, if there is counter-retaliation, then, it will develop into a vicious cycle. Hope it does not happen.

We hope that the US stop there with its sanctions already placed on various Chinese industries/entities and hence does not force China into further action.

Certainly, the Chinese action involves all critical industries, which is a considerable portion of economy. Hotels, on the other, will remain free whatever software they wish to use.

When Bush blocked CNOOC, or when Obama blocked the solar energy energy (or wind?) farm, the US was already playing with fire. Looks like China did not simply put its head on the chopping block and rather retaliated.

With Chinese companies equally powerful, I wish a level playing field for any industry (save critical ones) regardless of nationality.

I agree, but the examples you cites are far easier to defend under national security claims than the current actions of China. CNOOC was after oil assets, and China's actions to defend its oil interests in the SCS should make clear that oil is a national security issue; so no problem there (and indeed, China even prohibited rare earth exports, which are far less critical than oil). As far as Ralls (wind, by the way), that was blocked by CFIUS because of suspicions that it would be used to gather intelligence from a nearby Naval training facility. And guess what? Our courts overturned CFIUS's ruling, and allowed the transaction to go through. I doubt that any challenges to these actions will succeed in Chinese courts, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Otherwise, I agree with you. The market should be as free of restrictions as possible, and the national security clause should be invoked in only the most severe cases. In that sense, the "anti-monopoly" protectionist schemes are far more sinister in undermining free trade. For now, the situation is contained, but if national security directives and anti-trust raids are aimed at more American companies, I doubt it will stay calm for long.