Hacker News Reader

Comment by suraci | Hacker News Reader

> If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion.

1. of course there'll be no 'national security risks' because EU is an ally, and the US is spying on it

2. even though, troubles come to US's allies sometimes, like what Alstom and ASML met

3. EU products are mostly less compatible, overall, it cannot challenge the position where the US holds in the global value chain, so pose less of threat

View on HN

You still have not given any evidence how DJI is not a national security risk?

Doesn't it work the other way round? You'd have to prove that they are a national security risk? Because it's hard to prove a negative.

Like the way your irony works? I listed my arguments as why you can make a case that they are national security threats. You are more than welcome to call it a fake pretense but the fact remains that the majority of Chinese imports are not restricted and that includes tech/high-tech related items. If you have nothing more than America is ironic I can see where your endless questions stem from.

The burden of proof lies on the accuser. If you are not able to provide a proof of national security threat from tiktok or dji, then don't treat it like it's a fact. All the "ifs" don't constitute as a proof.

You obviously have a bias here so its going to be impossible to have any real discussion. There are very simple facts that I will restate for you. The CCP has seats at every major mainland corporation. Chinese corporations have in recent years been caught in some very spy like espionage, this is happening globally. China is an adversary to the US and Europe. There is no further burden of proof needed when talking about sensitive industries. You don't need to catch DJI in the act, similar to TikTok, if you cannot sever data/ties with the mainland there are real risks. Geopolitics suck but its a real risk that has to be snipped before it becomes a problem.

Do the five eyes and other countries have national intelligence that are collecting data, absolutely. I cannot recall any recent published articles about overt Western corporate espionage and especially any that were supported by a parent country.

> I cannot recall any recent published articles about overt Western corporate espionage and especially any that were supported by a parent country.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24992485

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57302806

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Parliamentary_Committee...

And this is just one known case of the US spying on allies.

Are any of those corporate espionage? Those seems to fall under government spying which I acknowledged exists for all companies and especially so with the five eyes.

So you justify the ban of TikTok, Huawei and DJI for strong national security reasons, but when we talk about the US spying on the government of allies, you say "spying on a government is okay, the problem is corporate espionage"?

Can you tell me - in your logic - why the hell there is a need to ban DJI if it's okay for the CCP to spy on the US government? Or will you now say "It's not okay because it's not the US"? Or maybe "It's okay to spy on allies, but not on adversaries, except if you are the US because then it's okay to do both"?

I was going to type out my rationale again but came to the thought that it wouldn't matter on you. You are emotional and slightly biased either in an angle that supports China or negatively towards the US. I am honestly not sure where your quotes/thought process is going other than its confusing. Enjoy your weekend bud.

Actually, that's probably the one thing that I would find interesting.

I didn't expect so many people to attack me when I said it was ironic. I find it ironic, period. It doesn't mean that I support China or that I hate the US. It only means precisely what I said: I find it ironic to criticise China's ban on US companies and end up banning Chinese companies for what seems to be protectionism.

Now you've been repeating that it is obviously a strong national security threat, but whenever I asked you to elaborate on that, you avoided it. Would that mean that it's maybe not that obvious?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com