In this weeks quarantine episode of our Useful Idiotspodcast, hostsMatt Taibbi and Katie Halper are joined by Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, who has yet again found himself in the middle of some media controversies.

For Democrats suck, Katie breaks down the recent viral Joe Biden clip, in which Biden plays Despacito from his phone at a rally during Hispanic Heritage Month. Thats what we call Hispandering, says Katie, who translates the sensual lyrics of the song into English for our listeners.

Katie also gets fired up about a recent proposition on MSNBC that Bidens association with Bernie may be hurting him with Cuban-American voters in Florida. Im just so tired of people using the Cuban-American demographic as interchangeable with Latino, says Katie. [Bernie] did really well with Latinos.

If [Democrats are] going to turn around and blame Sanders if-and-when they have a problem in Florida coming up in November, thats going to be really rich, because they were the ones who made a huge deal of this last year, says Matt.

Matt and Katie also return to their theme of neighborly conflict, citing an article from The Mirror about an angry letter that was sent to a homeowner whod recently painted their garage. God, I love human beings, Matt quips.

Glenn Greenwald once again joins our hosts from Brazil to discuss debates about him and his colleagues in the media.

Greenwald rebuts Ben Smiths recent New York Times piece on The Intercept publishing the Reality Winner leak. It wasnt like The Intercept was free from mistakes, there were mistakes made, and they acknowledged those mistakes. The parent company paid for the sources, Reality Winners, legal defense, says Greenwald. I just dont know what this New York Times article added other than to try and just take shots at people incoherently.

Greenwald also charges that in many stories that hes appeared in, the journalists writing them have passed off hypotheses as facts, when Greenwald says many of those things are categorically untrue. I would be present for events, or conversations, or things that people did, and then I would read in a major news outlet in a very authoritative tone, describing something that I knew first-hand was completely false, says Greenwald. Youre listening to the most trusted and influential media outlets saying things that you know personally didnt happen, are totally false, over and over and over again Theres nothing like being at the center of a story to make you realize just what a disinformation machine it is.

Our hosts and Greenwald discuss questions surrounding the Assange hearing, which Greenwald describes as the one true assault on free press that has been pursued during Trumps tenure.

And finally, Greenwald explains his motivation for, once again, recently appearing on Tucker Carlsons show on Fox News, in which he made an appeal to Trump to pardon both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. I also know that going on Fox, the shows that Trump watches is a really effective way of speaking directly to the one person who holds the power of the pardon, and thats the president, says Greenwald. I think its my ethical duty to do what I can to end injustices in the world, such as the injustice of Edward Snowden being trapped in one country for having exposed things that Americans have the right to know, and the injustice of Julian Assange being prosecuted and and extradited to the United States on espionage charges for revealing war crimes about the United States. So when someone offers me the opportunity to end an injustice, and make the world more just, Im going to do that. And its not even a close debate for me. I care a lot more about outcomes, about actually having my beliefs manifest as change in the world, than I care about preening and posturing for the approval of LARPing online liberals.

See original here:
Useful Idiots: Glenn Greenwald on Reality Winner Controversy and Asking Trump to Pardon Snowden - Rolling Stone

Threats to national security and prosperity have risen, both at home and abroad, in the years since 9/11, the deadliest ever terrorist attacks on the United States. Although critics are reluctant to admit it, President TrumpDonald John TrumpUS reimposes UN sanctions on Iran amid increasing tensions Jeff Flake: Republicans 'should hold the same position' on SCOTUS vacancy as 2016 Trump supporters chant 'Fill that seat' at North Carolina rally MORE has addressed some of these well. Cracking down on China, for instance, was long overdue. So was killing two jihadi leaders who were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in the Middle East.

Persuading the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to recognize Israel was an important achievement, whether or not Saudi Arabia and other Arab states follow suit. Diplomacy in Afghanistan has resulted in serious talks between the government and the Taliban that may end over 40 years of conflict there. Yet the administration has failed to address some of the most ominous new threats, often for partisan reasons.

Biological weapons and pathogens

If the coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything, it is that pathogens can be highly contagious and cost effective killers. Over the 20th century alone, about 300 million people died from smallpox, the variola virus that had killed a third of those it infected before a vaccine was developed. Yet before the collapse in 1991, the former Soviet Union was alleged to have secretly produced and stockpiled 100 metric tons of variola a year.

Classical biological weapons have proven hard for terrorists to make or use. Given the recent advances in biotechnology, however, the ability to create genetically modified superbugs is increasingly cheaper and more widespread. After 9/11 and the ensuing anthrax attacks, President Bush increased spending on germ threats. But the coronavirus pandemic has revealed the utter mismanagement of our preparedness effort.

Americans have died for lack of testing, treatment, and protective gear, rather apart from the president who, knowing what he said was untrue, repeatedly assured us that the coronavirus was not as serious as the flu, could miraculously disappear or may respond to a series of questionable treatments, and that wearing masks was not necessary. While Trump has poured billions into research to find a vaccine and better treatments, he has largely spurned the international medical surveillance networks and collaboration needed to spot the emergence of lethal pathogens.

Climate change and environment

While previous administrations warned of the danger of climate change, President Obama tried to define it as a national security priority. However, political foes mocked his Pentagon roadmap on the issue that identified climate climate as an urgent and growing threat to our national security and noted how environmental issues as rising seas, eroding coastlines, worsening droughts, melting icecaps, and devastating wildfires would endanger our 7,000 military installations around the world.

Skeptics also belittled the United Nations summit in Paris in 2015, at which the United States and some 200 countries pledged to reduce greenhouse gas and carbon output as soon as possible to stabilize global warming to well below 2 degrees centigrade. The decision from Trump to withdraw from that treaty on the earliest possible date, a day after the election this November, would leave the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world as the only country to abandon this international effort. Despite the lack of an alternative strategy, Trump derided the Paris agreement as a total disaster that has harmed our competitiveness.

As deadly wildfires roared across the West Coast last week, consuming over 6 million acres of Oregon, California, and Washington, about double a typical season, West Coast residents endured toxic air, triple digit heat, and rolling blackouts. As a result, climate change has turned into a much more important election issue. If you are in denial about climate change, said Governor Gavin Newsom, come to California.

Severe weather damage to people and economies around the world has triggered destabilizing mass migrations on a scale that might ultimately deny The effort by Trump to secure our national border with a wall or by any other means. A World Bank study found that worsening weather for Southeast Asia, home to nearly a fourth of the global population, forced over 8 million people to move toward Europe, the Middle East, and North America. About 17 million to 36 million more could be on the move, the World Bank projects, with similar migrations in the Americas.

Digital networks and cyberthreats

As in so many areas, our offense is more developed than our defense of air space, critical dams, power grids, digital networks, and our other essential infrastructure. Although plenty of this information remains classified, the Washington Post, based on the documents provided by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, noted several years ago that intelligence agencies had conducted more than 200 offensive cyberoperations during 2011 alone, with most targeting foriegn adversaries as Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea, and such activities as nuclear proliferation.

By contrast, government reports and independent studies suggest that our critical infrastructure, most of it in private hands, remains appallingly vulnerable. In March, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, founded by the late Senator John McCain, issued the report finding that most of our digital networks which store, process, and analyze data have likely been compromised. We are in a new permanent state of conflict, indeed, of war, said a Russian expert with access to defense information.

Given our inability to protect our digital and physical infrastructure, it is not a war that the country is positioned to win. Microsoft recently joined intelligence agencies with asserting that the Russian military intelligence unit that attacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 continues to launch ever stealthier attacks on both political parties.

The warning came a day after the government whistleblower alleged the White House and Homeland Security Department suppressed intelligence about continued Russian hacking because it made Trump look bad and ordered analysts to focus on Iran and China. The White House denies that charge, but the reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin reinforces notions about whether he hopes to benefit from Russian hacking.

The allegation from Microsoft that Russia is a more sophisticated hacker than China or Iran also contradicts the White House narrative that China poses the more serious cyberthreat. Moreover, the finding that China has mostly targeted the campaign of Joe Biden undermines the White House charge that China is interfering with the election to assist him.

Domestic insurrection and unrest

The United States has more guns than people. So think about what right wing extremists might do if Trump is defeated in what they perceive to be a stolen election. Or, for that matter, what those anarchists and left wing extremists have been doing in Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, Rochester, and other cities where peaceful protests have turned violent at night.

In a recent virtual meeting hosted by the Common Good, an organization that encourages dialogue and bipartisan policies, Jane Harman, a former Democratic lawmaker who now directs the Wilson Center in Washington, and Michael Chertoff, a former Homeland Security secretary, agreed that while jihadi terrorism still poses a grave threat, the growth of domestic terrorism, notably right wing extremists, concerns them more.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies found, based on reviews of nearly 900 terrorist plots and attacks in the United States between 1994 and 2020, that not only did right wing attacks and plots account for the majority of domestic incidents and rose significantly, outpacing terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including those from far left networks and people inspired by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Right wing extremists perpetrated a majority of the plots and attacks in the country last year and over 90 percent this year.

Chertoff said that his paramount concern is that foreign or domestic interference with the voting process will undermine confidence and the legitimacy of our elections. Any protracted legal and political battle, he warned, would make the case of George Bush versus Al Gore look like a kindergarten exercise. Thus, the lack of faith in our democratic system might be the greatest threat of all to our national security.

Judith Miller is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a former reporter with the New York Times, and the author of The Story: A Reporters Journey.

Read this article:
We face deadly threats that would make the coronavirus seem minor | TheHill - The Hill

The Five Eyes Alliance has its origins in cooperation between US and UK intelligence agencies during the Second World War. It solidified into the secret relationship between the intelligence agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and US during the Cold War. Its soubriquet Five Eyes came from the protective marking on intelligence material shared between the five allies AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY. The alliance remained in the shadows for decades details of some of its programmes coming to public prominence in the revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013.

Increasingly, the Five Eyes has become a more public arrangement. In June this year, Five Country Ministerial (FCM) meetings were held between Finance, Foreign and Home Security Ministers. In the past couple of years, the Five Eyes have adopted joint positions on a range of issues, from encryption in internet platforms, rare mineral supply, resilience in critical national infrastructure, the implications of COVID-19 for domestic security, economic recovery, and the situation in the Indo-Pacific region. Most recently, Five Eyes Anti-Trust Regulators have agreed protocols on information sharing, described by my colleague Francesco Liberatore below. This is particularly intriguing, as it is the furthest departure of Five Eyes activity from its core intelligence sharing and national security rationale.

So where is Five Eyes cooperation going? Clearly, it is developing and extending always on a nation state cooperation basis. The five countries differ in many ways, but share a common law underpinning, and a similar rationale for regulatory intervention. With over 460 million people and three G7 countries, the Five Eyes are a potentially significant economic grouping, as well as military/security. Given the highly international nature of the new economy, promoting cooperation between competition regulators makes perfect sense. Is it a first step in an emerging economic cooperation arrangement? Time will tell, but if it does the Five Eyes will have grown out of the murky world of intelligence cooperation into a major economic policy force.

Five Eyes Sign Cooperation Agreement in Competition Matters

Last week, the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission, the UK Competition and Markets Authority, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Commerce Commission (the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance) signed a competition enforcement framework agreement.

The agreement aims to strengthen cooperation between them and enable the exchange of information on antitrust matters. The most important feature of this agreement is that it will allow the Five Eyes to exchange certain confidential information without having to obtain the prior written consent of the parties under investigation. This level of cooperation is already possible within the EU, but it is the first with competition authorities of countries outside the EU, or soon to be outside of the EU, as in the UKs case.

The main provisions of the new cooperation agreement are summarised below:

The agreement also allows facilitating voluntary witness interviews, and some suspect it might potentially also open the door for foreign enforcers seeking to interview individuals extradited to the US.

In all other instances, the Five Eyes will only be able to exchange any information obtained in the course of an investigation, provided they obtain prior waiver or written consent from the parties who provided such information. When such information contains personal data, this personal data may only be transmitted when the authorities making and receiving the request, respectively, are investigating the same or related conduct or transaction, and subject to the applicable data protection rules.

However, the Five Eyes will still not be permitted to discuss, request or transmit legally privileged information, nor will they be permitted to discuss or exchange information received under their respective leniency or settlement procedures, unless they obtain the leniency applicants prior written consent.

The agreement does not cover some recurrent issues in international competition law enforcement, but it leaves the door open for enhanced bilateral cooperation agreements. These enhanced bilateral agreements could, for example, bridge the following enforcement cooperation gaps:

Nevertheless, the agreement is intended to eliminate a problem enforcers face when they all run in different directions in pursuing investigations against the same company. This problem is particularly acute in digital markets, where conduct or transactions are inherently global; and requiring a company to change its conduct or merger in one country will likely have implications in other countries in which it is active.

Companies should take account of the implications of this agreement on their compliance programmes, dawn raid manuals, merger control filings and remedies discussions, as well as leniency and settlement applications, whenever the conduct or transaction in question may have effects in two or more of the Five Eyes countries. With our firms global platform, we are best placed to assist our clients in this regard.

Original post:
Why Antitrust Practitioners Should be Interested in Espionage - Lexology

Daniel Yergin is an energy expert, and that means hes also an expert on global geopolitical relations. His first book, The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil Money and Power, in 1990 told the saga of world history through the lens of oil. The continual changes in the industry and power politics have prompted him to write several more installments of the story.

This month, the latest in Yergins oil-and-power series was published, The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations, this time exploring how the massive increase in oil production in the U.S. has redrawn the global power map. No longer is OPEC the power center, now its the Big Three producers, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the U.S., with China a key energy consumer.

How might the results of the presidential election affect the geopolitical map that you draw in the book?

I think a lot of things are set in place already. I mean, there is bipartisan consensus about China in Washington. So, theres not a great deal of room to move on that. On Russia, theres pretty bipartisan opposition. I think the big change would be actually on climate, where a Biden administration, one of its very first things would be to reengage with the Paris agreement.

We need to find a new stability in the relationship with China because these two countries are much more connected, interconnected, than people realize, but right now, trade and economics, which used to be stabilizing the balanced relationship is now very controversial.

People dont realize that China now has become one of the biggest customers for us oil and gas. And of course, energy is a very sensitive issue for the Chinese.

Ive been interested to observe Joe Bidens energy policy. He seems to have moved away from the Green New Deal in some key ways. Hes not calling for the U.S. to halt using fossil fuels. And he does support fracking and natural gas. Do you think this is a more realistic approach to the world or are we just forestalling the inevitable?

In Pittsburgh, he went out of his way to say, Im not going to ban fracking. Im not sure that a president can ban fracking in any event. But he does have a $2 trillion climate program. I also think he doesnt want to be a president who ends up presiding over a really rapid growth in U.S. oil imports. An abandon-fracking policy is really an import-more-oil policy.

What role does President Donald Trumps more friendly relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin play in the map that you drew?

The president has been very careful not to criticize Putin, and Putin hasnt criticized him. But if you look overall, the U.S. has pursued a pretty tough policy on Russia. We put more sanctions on Russia, and then we put more sanctions on Russia. And the geopolitical reality is that Russia and China are coming more and more together.

I think a new president would have to ask: Do we need something in our policy beyond sanctions? Russias economy may be smaller than Italys, but it is the other major nuclear power. It has a huge arsenal and we cant forget the nuclear side of the relationship.

What are you thinking of beyond sanctions?

Where are areas where we can work with Russia? One of the points I make in the book is, it really started when Edward Snowden went to Moscow. And that was really the beginning of the breakdown.

We are headed into a kind of new cold war with Russia and certainly the risk of a different kind of cold war with China. Are there areas where common interests can be found to work with Russia? But then something happens like the poisoning of [opposition politician Alexei] Navalny, that disrupts, that just throws a spanner. I think a lot will be determined by what the conclusions are about Russian engagement in the 2020 presidential election. I think that could have a lot of consequences that arent good.

How are people outside the U.S. thinking about the division and protests here?

A couple of things I hear from people in other parts of the world, one is concern about political cohesion and division in the United States, which would make us a less reliable, less stable player in the world. They still look for a stabilizer and a leader, and they worry about a U.S. turned so much inward that it loses contact with that wider role in an unruly global system.

I think a second thing that I hear from other countries is concern about where the U.S.-China split is going to go, and whether theyll have to choose sides in some fashion. And they cant. How do they choose sides?

I did a dialogue actually with a president of one Latin American country. And he said our relationship with the United States is very strong, but Chinas a very big market for us. How do we navigate this?

How does new agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates fit into the geopolitical map?

Its a very explicit representation of the new map because in the book I wrote about the significance of the split between the Arab Gulf countries and Iran and how serious that is. And the UAE is also concerned about future U.S. engagement in the region, particularly when the U.S. doesnt import much oil. Its looking to secure its future.

Theres an economic element to the relationship with Israel, to connect with a dynamic regional economy, entrepreneurial economy, and at the same time, its a very significant strategic collaboration dealing with what is the common enemy, which is Iran. And also, both are quite concerned about the role of Turkey, because really its Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran that are competing for a leading role in in the region.

And I think that the drone attack last summer on the big Saudi oil facility raised the stakes in terms of vulnerability and the need for new technologies for security. And I think thats certainly one element of this new relationship between the UAE and Israel.

A question for the last couple of years you heard is, will the U.S. long-term be as interested in the region, if it really doesnt import much oil from the region? Because thats been so fundamental since the 1970s. And so I think its also saying, well, we cant just count on the relationship with the United States.

What happens to us oil production over the next year or so?

February of 2020 was when U.S. oil production reached its highest level ever, 13 million barrels a day. This could not have been imagined a decade ago. I think by the end of this year, the U.S. will probably be in the 10 million to 10.5 million barrel a day range. And we will probably be in that range, maybe 11 million bpd, until this time next year, assuming theres a vaccine and you start to see recovery. Youll see people conserving cash and doing as little as possible starting to spend again, because to maintain those production levels, you have to invest. But so much depends upon the courses of virus and a vaccine.

This Q&A was conducted, edited and condensed by Dallas Morning News editorial board member and commentary editor Elizabeth Souder.

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.

Read more:
Daniel Yergin: How division and unrest in the U.S. affect global power shifts - The Dallas Morning News

The US governments ongoing offensive against Chinese tech flagship Huawei is sometimes portrayed as ham-handed American protectionism.This is also true of Washingtons restrictions on ZTE and several other Chinese surveillance-product companies.

The sanctions extend to companies supplying chips to Huawei and are also designed to dissuade or prevent companies and countries from using Huawei to build their 5G networks an area where the Chinese firm is a world leader. Many allege that Washington is attempting to cripple the Chinese player in order to allow US firms to catch up.

But as someone who has worked in computer and networks technology in the US, Japan and Korea, and as someone who is by no means a Donald Trump supporter personally, I welcome his administrations initiative in the area.

In 1988, with a then-freshly minted MBA, I made a career switch. Thanks to that switch, I was given deep dives into some of the arcane intricacies of computer and networks technologies.

Among those intricacies, no area is more complex than network security.As we surf the Internet, we take for granted the mind-numbing security challenges and confirmations taking place in real time as computers and network components work in tandem to assure efficient and secure communications.

But no matter how well designed the technology, it is ultimately susceptible to human overrides overrides that are intentional and often illegal.

Human risk factors trump the finest engineering.It would take a book even to briefly cover all these factors and that book would likely be out of date by the time it could be published.

But to mention a few concerns that have been linked to Huawei and other network providers: There exist trapdoors in operating systems and even in firmware that are routinely (though inappropriately) used by client companies system engineers as shortcuts to do ongoing maintenance.

If these shortcuts are unknown, the systems are safe. But once discovered, entire networks and datasets are endangered. And the shocking truth is that many of the risks are represented by in-house or contracted staff.

It was no accident that whistleblower Edward Snowden was hired as a systems engineer by a National Security Agency contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton. That gave him the run of the cyber office, and the ability to circumvent various safeguards.

Moreover, trapdoors can be purposely built into software and firmware code to allow a vendor or government agency access.Similarly, software keys for data access are sometimes intentionally shared with government intelligence and security agencies for national security reasons, such as during wars on terror, wars on drugs, and others.

Some technology providers refuse or resist this kind of cooperation demand from government agencies.Other companies do not. And even without hidden trapdoors and surrendered software keys, mischief is limited only by human creativity.

I have witnessed a networks benign features being used to red flag or trigger back-office computers to initiate activities totally unintended by the networks provider.

More commonly, a hacker will look among the various security levels of schemes found in computers operating systems, network security protocols and any other conceivable gateway when a personal computer, or even a smartcard, is verified.

That verification is an interaction within a security scheme which in turn provides a conceivable entry point for the bad guys.

In this regard, one may argue that it really doesnt matter if network technology is American, German, French, Finnish or Chinese.That is a fair argument.

However, there is a key component even more basic to all of this sophisticated, if at times vulnerable, technology.That component is human trust.

When a technology buyer selects a vendor, the assumption indeed, the demand is that the vendor is on the same team as the buyer.That means the vendor will do whatever is necessary to protect the buyers legitimate interests.

The situation is like trusting the engineering of your car, regardless of which country you may drive it.Such trust relationships are givens in all buyer-seller relationships or should be.

This issue is not simply about companies, it extends to countries. And while all companies, it could be argued, may compete with some degree of equality in related business global sectors, not all countries are the same, compete the same, or have the same systems of governance.

Even though China is undertaking capitalism with Chinese characteristics it is still firmly ruled by the Communist Party of China (CPC).The partys management and potential interference in all and any aspects of Chinese life and commerce has to be acknowledged.

Being a good party member is being a compliant party member, and compliance with the state is a feature of corporate practice. On Wednesday, the partysUnited Front Work Department issued guidelinesto strengthen the guidance and supervision of private businesses, while demanding that owners and managers keep up to speed on party tenets and President Xi Jinpings thoughts.

In liberal democracies, such as those found in North America and Europe, it is expected that technology providers will push back or even openly challenge their governments secretive snooping into customers networks and data.That is not the case of China.

Moreover, it is worth notingthat Huaweis founder and chairman, Ren Zhengfei, was a deputy regimental chief in thePeoples Liberation Army and remains a senior member of the CPC.While Chairman Ren has repeatedly assured the public that he would do his utmost to protect his customers, one needs to be mindful of his relationship with his government.

Huawei has already been forced to deny allegationsof its technology being used by the Xinjiang internal security forces for data analysis, and that companies operating in the Xinjiang regionsupplying Huawei use forced labor.

Even if the above and other allegations of intellectual property theft and patent infringement are false, another ongoing episode related to Huawei and the geopolitical complications that surround it should be born in mind by those who reside in democracies with rule of law.

That episode is the current hostage game being played out involving Chairman Rens daughter,Meng Wanzhou, former Huaweichief financial officer, and two Canadians arrested for unspecified national-security violations in China.

The US government accuses Meng of violating long-standing sanctions on Iran, including against the exportation of US technology goods into Iran. On August 22, 2018, a New York court issued an arrest warrant for Meng to stand trial in the US.

On December 1, 2018, Meng was arrested in Canada at the request of US authorities. Judicial proceedings are currently underway over her possible extradition to the US.

In China, in the same month,Beijingdetainedtwo resident Canadians, MichaelSpavor andMichael Kovrig,on charges of endangering the state. The detention of the two has been widely analyzed as being linked to Mengs detention.

But while Meng has been under house arrest and must wear an ankle detection device while reading books and doing her oil painting, Spavor and Kovrig were reported at one time to be held in isolation without being allowed outdoors, kept under lighting and surveillance 24 hours a day, with hours of interrogations per day.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has noted that during regular ChineseForeign Ministry press briefings, various spokespeople routinely mention the fate of the Canadians and that of Huawei founders daughter in the same response whether theyve been prompted to do so or not by reporters.

Party media outlets have been barefaced in demanding that Canada release Meng if the Canadians want their former diplomat and businessman back.However, the Canadian government and judiciary are firewalled, preventing ad hoc compliance. The Chinese government has no such constraints.

Some may say that concerns about CPC involvement in Huawei technologies in customers networks have yet to be proved.That may be true.But more broadly, we have the above example of the CPC taking action on behalf of Huawei, suggesting that the two parties are connected at the hip.

Furthermore, when theft is copying rather than physical removal, the crime is usually discovered if at all only after the fact.

At the end of the day, technology providers are guardians of their clients most valuable data and competitive advantages.Everyone wants those guardians to be willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill the mission.

While Chinese guardians may be generally loyal to their customers, in a country where business and politics are so tightly interlinked, the limits of this loyalty to overseas customers whose governments may be at odds with Beijing could prove minimal.

Tom Coyner worked for more than 20 years in the US, Japan and Korea in computer systems and large networks hardware and software, including as a Japan country marketing director and as Korea country manager.Currently he provides business consulting services to companies dealing with the Korean market as well as contributing text and photography to international media.

Asia Times Financialis now live. Linking accurate news, insightful analysis and local knowledge with the ATF China Bond 50 Index, the world'sfirst benchmark cross sector Chinese Bond Indices.Read ATFnow.

Continue reading here:
Partnering with Huawei is riskier than you think - Asia Times