Huawei breaks free from Google ecosystem with homegrown HarmonyOS
asia.nikkei.com
asia.nikkei.com
E.g., why do I have to constantly send my location to google in the background just to access my lat/long in apps that use google libraries?
(In general, I think it'd be a far bolder cultural victory to go create their own new thing, rather than focusing on a modest punking of the appstore. I also think that's a much harder task! They do seem to have some interesting innovative distributed systems ideas that could become a powerful next level experience, called DSoftBus. But what an undertaking!)
This OS project is precisely an effort for them to gain more access to user data (and partly to take control away from a US company). Why would they actively sabotage that with privacy-preserving tech?
However, in day-to-day business operations, there are laws governing how companies can use customer data. My understanding is that data privacy laws are now stricter in China than in the US.
For one, Chinese companies must have a CCP member in their leadership ranks. A company the size of Huawei has hundreds of them[1]. This kind of goes without saying in an autocracy that there will be party members in all companies, but it often blurs the line of private vs. state ownership.
Secondly, there are laws in place that require companies to provide direct feeds to the government of the data they process[2]. In the US, programs like PRISM were kept secret and made headlines when they were revealed, as there is still some amount of legal process that needs to happen before the government can access company data (Apple is famous for refusing, regardless if that's just PR or not), but in China this is done in the open, and all companies must comply.
I find that comparing an autocratic government to others that at least have some semblance of democracy is pointless. It's a certainty that in an autocracy companies and individuals have much less control over property, including their highly valuable digital data.
[1]: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2019/08...
[2]: https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/532583-for-chinese...
So US and Western Europe are autocracies then ? Because I cannot control which info the iOS, Android and Windows syphons to the US government.
And Apple is the company which fixes 0 days when others find them. And they also had a HW backdoor.
That's ridiculous.
> Because I cannot control which info the iOS, Android and Windows syphons to the US government.
The laws are certainly not where they need to be, but a European citizen can at least provide consent to how their data is handled, request their data from companies, and ask for it to be deleted. Last I heard, there are similar laws in some US states. China has recently passed similar laws (PIPL), but I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with living in a surveillance state, where your actions online can harm your social credit score, get you arrested[1], or disappeared.
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3259183/chi...
There is no such thing as a social credit score in China. It's a myth.
The fact that this myth has persisted for so many years is puzzling.
But please link me to any proof. I want to be educated.
Also, way to ignore the part where people are arrested or disappeared for the same behavior. At least we can agree that much is true.
If you want to know about the real "social credit system," look up Jeremy Daum, a specialist in Chinese law at Yale who has written various articles and given interviews on the subject. Long story short: it's a grab bag of corporate regulations, and does not involve scoring of citizens.
There's only one way that private individuals ever interact with the system, and that is if they default on a court decision. Every case you hear about someone not being allowed to take high-speed trains or the like has to do with people who lost a legal case (such as a defamation lawsuit), were ordered to pay a fine, and then refused. Again, no score is ever involved, and citizens rarely interact with this system at all.
Go ask any of your Chinese colleagues what their "social credit score" is in China. They don't have one. The only people in China who have ever heard of "social credit scores" are people who are familiar with Western internet memes.
> the basis for denying people the ability to leave the country
Exit bans are applied when someone is facing legal proceedings, and they're considered a flight risk. Again, there simply is no citizen scoring system in China. Doesn't exist.
Even if there is no nationwide "social credit score", local governments have been experimenting with an incentive and penalty system for decades now. This is well documented inside and outside of China.
Even the new nationwide law set in place in 2022[1] mentions some of the same practices carried out by local governments:
> There are 14 penalty measures for untrustworthiness, broken into 3 types [...] such as restricting entry in a marketplace or industry, restrictions on holing [sic] positions, restrictions on spending, restrictions on exiting the country, restrictions on promotion to a higher level of schooling, and so forth [...]
The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things, such as "causing unrest", "spreading falsehoods", or whatever the local or central government deems to go against their bottom line.
Even sources that try to label this as a myth[2,3] can't avoid mentioning that these systems do exist as localized "pilots". So whether or not this is done nationwide, whether or not a "score" exists for individual citizens, and whether or not they're aware of it, doesn't make this a myth, or some form of Western propaganda. Your statements that all of this is a myth is patently false. Please stop spreading disinformation.
[1]: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/sc-punishment-list/
[2]: https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-social-credit-score-unt...
[3]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-an...
False. There were one or two towns that implemented opt-in rewards programs, in which you could get benefits like deposit waivers at the local library and other minor perks.
> The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things
You're trying to read and interpret a law for yourself - one that you admit you have trouble understanding. Instead of trying to figure out what the legalese means for yourself, read what an expert says. You linked to the law at "China Law Translate," which is a project at Yale run by the guy I recommended earlier: Jeremy Daum. Jeremy Daum has expended a lot of effort trying to explain to the media that the Social Credit System has nothing to do with scoring, that it's mainly aimed at businesses (not private individuals), and that the only way you can be subject to any penalties under the system is if you are sentenced by a court of law under an already existing criminal statute.
I'll give you a very concrete example of how a private individual would actually interact with the Social Credit System. There's an MMA fighter in China who is famous for challenging and then beating up traditional martial artists. He challenged an old master who refused to fight. He then started insulting the old master in public. The old master sued the MMA fighter for defamation and won. The MMA fighter was ordered by the court to pay a fine and apologize, but he refused to do so. This is where the Social Credit System came in, after the guy was sentenced. Because he was in default of a court judgment, the MMA fighter was put on a blacklist, which among other things prevented him from buying high-speed-train tickets.
That's how the system actually works for private individuals. It is nothing like the internet meme about everyone having a score that goes up and down whenever they post an online comment. It's a system that can apply additional penalties to people who default on court judgments, but which mostly deals with corporate regulation. The basic idea is that businesses that have a good track record for obeying regulations and honoring contracts should receive less scrutiny, while businesses that have bad track records should receive additional scrutiny, be barred from getting government contracts, etc.
https://sites.ischool.berkeley.edu/blog/2024/02/23/chinas-so...
> Beyond a mere pipedream, there are currently 36 pilot programs deployed in some of China’s largest cities.
> Individual scores and grades for residents. Misbehaving (littering, jaywalking) results in score reduction and punishment; exemplary behavior (caring for aged parents) in good ratings and benefits.
> > The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things > > You're trying to read and interpret a law for yourself - one that you admit you have trouble understanding.
No, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the law says. It's the language itself that is vague and open to interpretation.
> Instead of trying to figure out what the legalese means for yourself, read what an expert says.
No, thank you. I don't need an "expert" to regurgitate what the law says. And what it says is simply a formalization of what localized pilots have been applying for years now, except that it's now a nationwide law.
> that it's mainly aimed at businesses (not private individuals)
Businesses are not the ones littering, jaywalking, or cheating on tests, and being posted on shaming billboards.
> I'll give you a very concrete example of how a private individual would actually interact with the Social Credit System.
Look, you can cherry pick examples all day long. I'm sure that in a country of 1.4 billion people there will be many such cases. But the reality is that there's a draconian law that is open to interpretation by local governments to punish people in whatever way they please. The law says so:
> Where local regulations have special provisions on penalty measures other than those provided for in this list, the local unit leading the establishment of the social credit system, in conjunction with relevant departments (units) may implement supplemental lists based on local regulations to be used only in that region.
All of this is hardly an issue, though. Whether or not a scoring system exists should not be the main topic of discussion, when people are being arrested or disappeared for some of this same behavior. Or is that also Western propaganda?
> No, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the law says. It's the language itself that is vague and open to interpretation.
If you know what terms like "credit subject" and conditions like "subject to law" mean, then I suspect that the law you're reading is much less vague and open to interpretation. Legal documents like this use specialized terminology and assume a broader knowledge of the legal system and regulatory framework. Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System, which should be a tip-off that perhaps you don't understand the law you're reading.
> No, thank you. I don't need an "expert" to regurgitate what the law says.
Actually, you do need a legal expert to say what the law means. I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law, and when I read the law you're citing, I come to a very different interpretation. It looks to me like an attempt to limit the sorts of punishments local governments may apply to people who break certain types of laws.
The post lists its sources at the bottom, and the data comes from MERICS[1]. I suppose they shouldn't be trusted either, but the experts that align with your viewpoints should.
> Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System
I'm not claiming anything beyond what the sources I linked to show: that a social credit system does exist, regardless if that's on a national or regional level, and that it's applied to individuals, and not just companies. Your claims that this system is entirely a myth, and later that it's only applied to companies, are patently false. Now you're moving the goalposts again that I need to be an expert in Chinese law to have an opinion about this.
> I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law
I don't need to be an expert to understand English. The translation is written in plain English, not some alien language only experts understand. There are surely nuances in certain phrases, and the vagueness leaves it open to interpretation, but the intent is clear.
Anyway, I feel like we're going in circles here, so let's stop wasting each others time.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_S...
If you trust some random student's homework as an accurate summary, that's on you.
> Your claims that this system is entirely a myth
I never said that the existence of a system is a myth. The myth is the score. The internet meme that everyone knows and that many believe is centered around this score, and therefore has nothing to do with reality.
> that it's only applied to companies
I never said that it only applies to companies. I said that it's mainly focused on companies. I specifically told you one way that it could be applied to individuals: people who default on court judgments can be banned from buying certain "luxury" goods like high-speed train tickets.
> I don't need to be an expert to understand English.
Understanding English does not mean you'll understand a legal document written in English. I don't think you've understood the law you linked to. One major aspect of it that I think you don't appreciate is that it is focused on limiting the types of penalties that local governments may impose for certain types of crimes. Another aspect that I think you're missing is that this is focused on business regulation. When it does mention "natural persons," it's often dealing with their professional conduct. E.g., people who commit fraud may be banned from carrying out certain professions. A third aspect of the law that I think you're overlooking is that these penalties are imposed on entities or people that break the law, not for any sort of low "social credit score." This example ties together these last two points:
"In accordance with laws and regulations, carry out professional bans or practice restrictions for a set period of time against natural persons that have major conduct in violation of laws or regulations in a specified sector."
Local governments can ban people who violate the law in a certain business sector from practicing in that sector. This is nothing at all like the "social credit score" meme. This is like, "If you've been convicted of embezzlement, you can't work at a bank any more." It isn't, "If you post a comment online that the CCP doesn't like, you can't get a loan."
Now they can be famous for lying, too: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
Besides, that article talks about push notification data. I was referring to their refusal to decrypt phone data for the FBI[1]. How much of that was done for self-serving purposes, and how much they actually cooperated, will likely never be known publicly.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
It is pure security theater. If you're waiting for Apple to come out and make a press release admitting to all this, you've missed the point entirely.
Snowden showed that the US government was secretly compelling all the major tech companies to hand over vast amounts of user data to the NSA. This is formally illegal, but it has now been going on for decades, and there's almost no way to challenge it.
My point is that personal freedoms such as the right of data ownership are more restricted in an autocratic state. This is just the way these governments operate, and citizens have no say in the matter. Say what you will about the US, it still hasn't reached that level of control over its population.
I'm arguing against your point that the situation is the same in the US. It absolutely isn't. But please avoid whataboutisms in the future, since it only serves to derail the topic.
> that level of control over its population
The difference between the US and China is not that data is protected from the government in one. If the US government wants your data, it will get it. The difference is in issues like censorship and habeas corpus.
> whataboutisms
When someone starts going on about how Chinese companies can be compelled to give data to the government, as if this is something particular to China, the fact that the US government can just as easily compel companies to hand over data is absolutely relevant.
Think of cheaper phones in China, India, Pakistan, South America, and so on. Huawei can aim for literally billions of customers without these features, just by being an all-around useful OS in every day life for the people who usually don't have phones as part of their daily toolbox yet.
Last I heard it got scraped. I imagine it is a lot harder than it sounds and would still require devs to manually push their apps to the Microsoft store (which could be quite hard to convince devs to do).
Funnily enough reimplementing the Play Services API would probably be 100% okay legally because of the Oracle vs Google lawsuit.
If anything Google would be very okay with this to reduce the heat they are getting from anti trust regulators. As long as Microsoft never got large enough share of the market.
But oh well, this is probably never gonna happen...
Though while we are at it — why is there no easy way to run android on gnu linux desktops? Hell, why is the latter not rebuilt on top of the much better android primitives? Like so many stuff is just solved in android which are laughably bad in linux desktop, like it’s nonexistent security.
> why is there no easy way to run android on gnu linux desktops?
Probably because nobody bothered to do it and I imagine a lot of existing linux desktop software would have problems running in android. Like Android has its own libc and stuff. I am not knowledgeable enough though to be sure of these claims.
As for the claim of non existent security, I wonder what you mean? Lots of attention nowadays in the Linux world is to containerise everything, not to mention the way xdg-desktop-portal works.
Of course, using xdg-desktop-portal requires developers to use that API. But honestly, I've seen most software I use asking permissions through it. This is most evident when running some Wayland compositor.
To be fair, yes, the developer needs to do their part.
(Edit: more detail on things)
[0] https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/wiki/Implementation-Status
Also, if you disable the Google location provider, which is opt-in on device setup, the Play services location APIs fall back to GPS.