I am dismayed by the lack of penetrating questions from journalists. Here is another category of questions that have never been addressed so far as I can tell. Perhaps the information I’d like to see requires too confrontational questions, but most questions can be asked in a completely non-hostile manner, even if the interviewer hates “60 Minutes.” Anyway, politicians rarely answer questions.
So, why has no journalist asked Chinese diplomats of tech company (like Huawei) execs what they would do when faced with laws and regulations that require different behavior, like privacy laws and the Chinese law that requires companies to turn over information on demand.
Though translating legal-ese into English is non-trivial so there may be mistakes in this background, the way I read the news reports Huawaei, for example, can be required to do things that are illegal outside China. Typical sources for this concern are in the fine print below (remember the large print and loud voice giveth, the small print and whispers taketh away).
Why have no journalists, at least none I’ve found, addressed the contingency that seems bound to occur?
Tough hardly an unbiased news source, the U.S. Dept of State wrote,
“Huawei officials have claimed publicly that Chinese law gives the “government” no authority to do things such as compel a firm to install cyber “back doors” in software code or hardware architectures, or to install “listening devices” in equipment. But even if you put aside that company’s cute rhetorical sleight-of-hand in making this claim – since, technically speaking, the supreme authority in China is not the “government” but rather the Communist Party – this claim is simply untrue. Multiple Chinese laws, in fact, require companies to cooperate unconditionally with the Chinese Communist Party’s security apparatus in order to “guarantee state security.” The National Intelligence Law, for instance, requires all entities in China to cooperate with its intelligence services, and covers both private companies and state-owned enterprises. Analogous provisions exist in China’s National Security Law, Counter-Terrorism Law, and Cybersecurity Law.”
Relatively un-biased Wikipedia describes one part of the European General Data Protection Regulation,
“Data controllers must clearly disclose any data collection, declare the lawful basis and purpose for data processing, and state how long data is being retained and if it is being shared with any third parties …
“Article 12 requires that the data controller provides information to the ‘data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language …
“The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives people the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed. A data controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of data that are being processed as well as a copy of the actual data; furthermore, the data controller has to inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the purposes of the processing …”