> The Chinese government, which has long used its country’s vast market as leverage over American technology companies, is now asking some of those firms to directly pledge their commitment to contentious policies that could require them to turn user data and intellectual property over to the government.
This first paragraph seems to be an egregious and willful misrepresentation of the document[1] by the New York Times. Most of these promises appear to be good and reasonable ideas without an ulterior motive. The only part that I don't quite understand is #6 where they talk about the "supervision of society".
Farther down the article:
> The letter also asks the American companies to ensure their products are “secure and controllable,” a catchphrase that industry groups said could be used to force companies to build so-called back doors — which allow third-party access to systems — provide encryption keys or even hand over source code.
I don't see that phrase anywhere in this document, though the individual words do appear several times. Moreover, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that anything in the document implies third-party access to secure or proprietary information.
This first paragraph seems to be an egregious and willful misrepresentation of the document by the New York Times.
No, if anything it is an understatement of how problematic this pledge is.
The only part that I don't quite understand is #6 where they talk about the "supervision of society".
"Supervision of society" is what the modern government of China has moved to as an quasi-alternative to traditional communist "Command and Control" planning[1].
It encompasses both the type of business regulation that is more familiar in the West (business licenses, safety regulations) along with comprehensive state surveillance of both financial/economic indicators as well as what many societies would consider "private speech".
The point of the PRC's tech company pledge that you say you find difficult to parse happens to be the one where the phrase "secure and controllable" is used:
Article #6 states:
"Accept the supervision of all parts of society. To promise to accept supervision from all parts of society, to cooperate with third-party institutions for assessment and verification that products are secure and controllable and that user information is protected etc. to prove actual compliance with these commitments."
I don't think so. NYT is pointing out that dangerous language is buried in a bunch of innocuous items, which is totally true, i.e. keeping all data in China (5) and to "accept supervision of all parts of society" (6), which both sound pretty clear as to intent tbh.
This first paragraph seems to be an egregious and willful misrepresentation of the document[1] by the New York Times. Most of these promises appear to be good and reasonable ideas without an ulterior motive. The only part that I don't quite understand is #6 where they talk about the "supervision of society".
Farther down the article:
> The letter also asks the American companies to ensure their products are “secure and controllable,” a catchphrase that industry groups said could be used to force companies to build so-called back doors — which allow third-party access to systems — provide encryption keys or even hand over source code.
I don't see that phrase anywhere in this document, though the individual words do appear several times. Moreover, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that anything in the document implies third-party access to secure or proprietary information.
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/16/technology/doc...