PRC Response To U.S. Clean Networks

The PRC responds to  the U.S.’ Clean Networks with call for international, multilateral standards

In a speech given by the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the PRC proposed international, multilateral cooperation in addressing data security around the globe. In doing, Wang took some obvious shots at recent policies announced by the United States (U.S.) and longer term actions such as surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA). The PRC floated a “Global Initiative on Data Security” that would, on its face, seem to argue against actions being undertaken by Beijing against the U.S. and some of its allies. For example, this initiative would bar the stealing of “important data,” yet the PRC stands accused of hacking Australia’s Parliament. Nonetheless, the PRC is likely seeking to position itself as more internationalist than the U.S., which under President Donald Trump has become more isolationist and unilateralist in its policies. The PRC is also calling for the rule of law, especially around “security issues,” most likely a reference to the ongoing trade/national security dispute between the two nations playing out largely in their technology sectors.

Wang’s speech came roughly a month after the U.S. Department of State unveiled its Clean Networks program, an initiative aimed at countering the national security risks posed by PRC technology companies, hardware, software, and apps (see here for more analysis.) He even went so far as to condemn unilateral actions by one nation in particular looking to institute a “clean” networks program. Wang framed this program as aiming to blunt the PRC’s competitive advantage by playing on national security fears. The Trump Administration has sought to persuade, cajole, and lean on other nations to forgo use of Huawei equipment and services in building their next generation 5G networks with some success.

And yet, since the Clean Networks program lacks much in the way of apparent enforcement mechanisms, the Department of States’s announcement may have had more to do with optics as the Trump Administration and many of its Republican allies in Congress have pinned the blame on COVID-19 on the PRC and cast the country as the primary threat to the U.S. This has played out as the Trump Administration has been choking off access to advanced semiconductors and chips to PRC firms, banned TikTok and WeChat, and order ByteDance to sell musical.ly, the app and platform that served as the fulcrum by which TikTok was launched in the U.S.

Wang asserted the PRC “believes that to effectively address the risks and challenges to data security, the following principles must be observed:

  • First, uphold multilateralism. Pursuing extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefits is the right way forward for addressing the deficit in global digital governance. It is important to develop a set of international rules on data security that reflect the will and respect the interests of all countries through broad-based participation. Bent on unilateral acts, a certain country keeps making groundless accusations against others in the name of “clean” network and used security as a pretext to prey on enterprises of other countries who have a competitive edge. Such blatant acts of bullying must be opposed and rejected.
  • Second, balance security and development. Protecting data security is essential for the sound growth of digital economy. Countries have the right to protect data security according to law. That said, they are also duty-bound to provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for all businesses. Protectionism in the digital domain runs counter to the laws of economic development and the trend of globalization. Protectionist practices undermine the right of global consumers to equally access digital services and will eventually hold back the country’s own development.
  • Third, ensure fairness and justice. Protection of digital security should be based on facts and the law. Politicization of security issues, double standards and slandering others violate the basic norms governing international relations, and seriously disrupt and hamper global digital cooperation and development.

Wang continued, “[i]n view of the new issues and challenges emerging in this field, China would like to propose a Global Initiative on Data Security, and looks forward to the active participation of all parties…[and] [l]et me briefly share with you the key points of our Initiative:

  • First, approach data security with an objective and rational attitude, and maintain an open, secure and stable global supply chain.
  • Second, oppose using ICT activities to impair other States’ critical infrastructure or steal important data.
  • Third, take actions to prevent and put an end to activities that infringe upon personal information, oppose abusing ICT to conduct mass surveillance against other States or engage in unauthorized collection of personal information of other States.
  • Fourth, ask companies to respect the laws of host countries, desist from coercing domestic companies into storing data generated and obtained overseas in one’s own territory.
  • Fifth, respect the sovereignty, jurisdiction and governance of data of other States, avoid asking companies or individuals to provide data located in other States without the latter’s permission.
  • Sixth, meet law enforcement needs for overseas data through judicial assistance or other appropriate channels.
  • Seventh, ICT products and services providers should not install backdoors in their products and services to illegally obtain user data.
  • Eighth, ICT companies should not seek illegitimate interests by taking advantage of users’ dependence on their products.

As mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article, the U.S. and many of its allies and partners would argue the PRC has transgressed a number of these proposed rules. However, the Foreign Ministry was very clever in how they drafted and translated these principles, for in the second key principle, the PRC is proposing that no country should use “ICT activities to impair other States’ critical infrastructure.” And yet, two international media outlets reported that the African Union’s (AU) computers were transmitting reams of sensitive data to Shanghai daily between 2012 and 2017. If this claim is true, and the PRC’s government was behind the exfiltration, is it fair to say the AU’s critical infrastructure was impaired? One could argue the infrastructure was not even though there was apparently massive data exfiltration. Likewise, in the third key principle, the PRC appears to be condemning mass surveillance of other states, but just this week a PRC company was accused of compiling the personal information of more than 2.4 million worldwide, many of them in influential positions like the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Australia. And yet, if this is the extent of the surveillance, it is not of the same magnitude as U.S. surveillance over the better part of the last two decades. Moreover, the PRC is not opposing a country using mass surveillance of its own people as the PRC is regularly accused of doing, especially against its Uighur minority.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Photo by Hanson Lu on Unsplash

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (2 September)

Here is today’s Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events

Coming Events

  • The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing on 9 September on “U.S.-China Relations in 2020: Enduring Problems and Emerging Challenges” to “evaluate key developments in China’s economy, military capabilities, and foreign relations, during 2020.”
  • On 10 September, the General Services Administration (GSA) will have a webinar to discuss implementation of Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) that bars the federal government and its contractors from buying the equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, and other companies from the People’s Republic of China.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks on 14 September. The FCC asserted
    • Chairman [Ajit] Pai will host experts at the forefront of the development and deployment of open, interoperable, standards-based, virtualized radio access networks to discuss this innovative new approach to 5G network architecture. Open Radio Access Networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable a diversity in suppliers, better network security, and lower costs.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • On 22 September, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a public workshop “to examine the potential benefits and challenges to consumers and competition raised by data portability.”
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 30 September titled ““Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws” with Federal Trade Commission Chair Joseph Simons and United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Makan Delhrahim.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released for comment an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to implement a provision from a 2018 rewrite of the United States (U.S.) export control of certain technology, namely “foundational technology” in this case. The Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) (P.L. 115-232) required the Department of Commerce to establish “a regular, ongoing interagency process to identify emerging and foundational technologies,” and Commerce began the process with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to identify only emerging technologies in November 2018. Yet the agency has not followed up with draft regulations on managing the export control process for emerging technologies. BIS explained
    • Pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, BIS and its interagency partners are engaged in a process to identify emerging and foundational technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States. Foundational technologies essential to the national security are those that may warrant stricter controls if a present or potential application or capability of that technology poses a national security threat to the United States. In order to determine if technologies are foundational, BIS will evaluate specific items, including items currently subject only to anti-terrorism (AT) controls on the CCL or those designated as EAR99.
    • Under ECRA, emerging and foundational technologies are those technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States and are not critical technologies described in Section 721(a)(6)(A)(i)-(v) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA).
    • Section 1758 of ECRA requires that foundational technologies be identified, and that BIS establish appropriate controls for that technology under the EAR. At a minimum, such controls would apply to countries subject to an embargo, including an arms embargo, imposed by the United States.
    • ECRA also requires that the interagency process is to take into account:
      • The development of foundational technologies in foreign countries;
      • The effect export controls may have on the development of such technologies in the United States; and
      • The effectiveness of export controls imposed pursuant to ECRA on limiting the proliferation of foundational technologies to foreign countries.
  • The Privacy Commissioner of Canada Daniel Therrien responded to an inquiry from Members of Parliament “about the privacy implications of the federal government’s COVID-19 exposure notification application (COVID Alert) and the ArriveCAN application.” The OPC explained
    • Our review of the COVID Alert application highlighted serious weaknesses with our current federal privacy legislation. In this case, the government took the position that its privacy laws do not apply in light of its assertion that personal information is not collected by the application. Further, while the design of the application is good, and that the government has agreed to be subject to an independent review, the government was not bound to make these commitments. The government chose to respect the principles put forth in our guidance documents because public trust is vital to the application’s success. However, without robust laws, other programs and applications could be introduced in the future that are not so privacy-sensitive.
  • The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) “added 24 Chinese companies to the Entity List for their role in helping the Chinese military construct and militarize the internationally condemned artificial islands in the South China Sea,” including a number of technology companies. BIS explained:
    • The Entity List is a tool utilized by BIS to restrict the export, re-export, and transfer (in-country) of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to persons (individuals, organizations, companies) reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
    • Additionally, in a related action, “the Department of State will begin imposing visa restrictions on People’s Republic of China (PRC) individuals responsible for, or complicit in, either the large-scale reclamation, construction, or militarization of disputed outposts in the South China Sea, or the PRC’s use of coercion against Southeast Asian claimants to inhibit their access to offshore resources.” The Department of State stated that “[t]hese individuals will now be inadmissible into the United States, and their immediate family members may be subject to these visa restrictions as well.”
  • The Trump Administration announced “more than $1 billion in awards for the establishment of 12 new AI and QIS research and development (R&D) institutes nationwide,” a substantial portion of which Congress would need to appropriate in future years. The White House claimed the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research Institutes and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) quantum information science (QIS) Research Centers “will serve as national R&D hubs for these critical industries of the future, spurring innovation, supporting regional economic growth, and training our next generation workforce.”
  • The Trump Administration explained:
    • The National Science Foundation and additional Federal partners are awarding $140 million over five years to a total of seven NSF-led AI Research Institutes. These collaborative research and education institutes will focus on a range of AI R&D areas, such as machine-learning, synthetic manufacturing, precision agriculture, and forecasting prediction. Research will take place at universities around the country, including the University of Oklahoma at Norman, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of California at Davis, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    • NSF anticipates making additional AI Research Institute awards in the coming years, with more than $300 million in total awards, including contributions from partner agencies, expected by next summer. Overall, NSF invests more than $500 million in artificial intelligence activities annually and is the largest Federal driver of nondefense AI R&D.
    • To establish the QIS Research Centers, DOE is announcing up to $625 million over five years to five centers that will be led by DOE National Laboratory teams at Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermi, Oak Ridge, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Each QIS Center will incorporate a collaborative research team spanning multiple institutions as well as scientific and engineering disciplines. The private sector and academia will be providing another $300 million in contributions for the centers.

Further Reading

  • Facebook takes down Russian operation that recruited U.S. journalists, amid rising concerns about election misinformation” By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Craig Timberg – The Washington Post; “Russians Again Targeting Americans With Disinformation, Facebook and Twitter Say” By Sheera Frenkel and Julian E. Barnes; “Russian internet trolls hired U.S. journalists to push their news website, Facebook says” By Kevin Collier and Ken Dilanian – NBC News. In what is more evidence that the Russian Federation’s tactics have changed even though its goals have not, Facebook and Twitter announced the takedown of content written by Americans for a fake new source created and run by the Internet Research Agency. The purported online publications, Peace Data, has posted a number of articles aimed at turning far left voters off to the Biden-Harris campaign. In a sign of evolution, however, they hired freelance American journalists to write content that was then amplified elsewhere on the internet. A very curious aspect of this incident is why the FBI merely tipped off Facebook and Twitter instead of a more vigorous approach to addressing efforts to again create distrust and chaos in a U.S. election. One of the articles claims the FBI does not respond to state-sponsored influence operations as they may not be against U.S. law.
  • Big Tech Embraces New Cold War Nationalism” By JS Tan – Foreign Policy. This piece argues that Silicon Valley’s worldview and strategies have changed now in large part because of the rise of companies from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) like Huawei, TikTok, Tencent, and Alibaba. Now companies like Facebook and Google are discarding their internationalist, neoliberal approach and have aligned themselves with the United States (U.S.) government for a variety of reasons, including an inability to compete fairly inside the PRC. However, Silicon Valley and Washington’s interests on the PRC may be aligned, but in a number of other, very significant ways, especially with the current government, there are considerable differences.
  • Amazon Is Spying on Its Workers in Closed Facebook Groups, Internal Reports Show” By Lauren Kaori Gurley and Joseph Cox – Vice. Another article about the online giant’s distaste for unions and labor organizing activity. In this piece, we learn that Amazon is monitoring public posts by Amazon Flex drivers and possibly even penetrating closed or private groups on platforms like Facebook and hen reportedly extensively inside the company on The other day, Vice broke a story about Amazon posting two positions for intelligence analysts to help the company track labor organizing. The company took down the positions after the story was posted.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

Team Telecom Returns Negative Recommendation On China Telecom

Executive branch agencies veto a Chinese telecom operating in the U.S. because of “identified substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks associated with China Telecom’s operations, which render the FCC authorizations inconsistent with the public interest.”  

The “Team Telecom” agencies recommended that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “revoke and terminate China Telecom (Americas) Corp.’s authorizations to provide international telecommunications services to and from the United States.” This action comes a week after the White House issued an executive order, reorganizing the process by which the U.S. government will review foreign investment in the telecommunications. In this case, the executive branch agencies that form Team Telecom called on the FCC to terminate and revoke the application of a company from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to operate in the U.S.

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) “filed on behalf of the Executive Branch of the United States Government a recommendation that the FCC terminate and revoke the Section 214 international authorizations of China Telecom (Americas) Corporation (China Telecom) to provide international voice traffic between the United States and foreign countries” per the agency’s press release. The NTIA continued, “[f]or purposes of this recommendation, the Executive Branch represents agreement among the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security (DHS), Defense (DOD), State, Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).”

The DOJ’s press release provided additional details on Team Telecom’s recommendation, and the agencies “identified substantial and unacceptable national security and law enforcement risks associated with China Telecom’s operations, which render the FCC authorizations inconsistent with the public interest.” DOJ explained, “[m]ore specifically the recommendation was based on:

  • the evolving national security environment since 2007 and increased knowledge of the PRC’s role in malicious cyber activity targeting the United States;
  • concerns that China Telecom is vulnerable to exploitation, influence, and control by the PRC government;
  • inaccurate statements by China Telecom to U.S. government authorities about where China Telecom stored its U.S. records, raising questions about who has access to those records;
  • inaccurate public representations by China Telecom concerning its cybersecurity practices, which raise questions about China Telecom’s compliance with federal and state cybersecurity and privacy laws; and
  • the nature of China Telecom’s U.S. operations, which provide opportunities for PRC state-actors to engage in malicious cyber activity enabling economic espionage and disruption and misrouting of U.S. communications. 

DOJ added

Some of the foregoing relate to China Telecom’s failure to comply with a 2007 Letter of Assurance, which was a basis for the existing FCC authorizations. The Department’s National Security Division, Foreign Investment Review Section, identified those compliance issues through its mitigation monitoring program.  As a result, the Executive Branch agencies concluded that the national security and law enforcement risks associated with China Telecom’s international Section 214 authorizations could not be mitigated by additional mitigation terms. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump has issued an executive order creating an inter-agency review body to determine whether foreign investment in U.S. telecommunications companies presents national security issues. However, the executive order merely formalizes and change the longstanding “Team Telecom” process through which proposed foreign investment in the U.S. telecommunications industry have been evaluated. Like the previous body, the new body will consist of representatives from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice and other agencies in an advisory role.