The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
China dive
Episode 388 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Among the good things about coming back from Christmas break are all the deep analyses that news outlets save up to publish over the holidays – especially those they can report from countries where celebrating Christmas isn't that big a deal. At least that's how I account for the recent flood of deep media dives on China technology issues. Megan Stifel takes us through a few. The first is a Washington Post article on China taking the tools it uses for measuring online dissent and focusing them on the rest of the world. The second is a New York Times article that tells us how the Chinese government takes the next step -- using its tools for suppressing internal dissent on the rest of the world when it says things China doesn't like. Utterly unsurprising, to me at least, is how social media companies like Twitter have turned out to be hapless enablers of China's speech police. Later in the podcast, Megan covers another story in the same vein – the growing global unease about China's success in building Logink, a global logistics and shipping database.
Scott Shapiro and Nick Weaver walk us through the conviction of a Harvard professor for lying about his China ties. It may be too cynical to say that the Justice Department wanted Professor Charles Lieber especially badly because he's not Asian, but there's no doubt he'll be Exhibit A when it defends the China Initiative against claims of ethnic profiling.
Megan takes us through another great story of hack-enabled insider trading, helicopters to Zermatt, and dueling extraditions; as the piece de resistance, NYT hints we may learn more about Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.
Scott explains how Apple AirTags are being used to track people. Nick gives us a feel for just how hard it is to separate good from bad in designing Air Tags. I suggest that this is a problem we could leave to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
Nick lays out the economics of hacking as a service and introduces us to yet another company in that business – Cytrox. No one seems to last long in the business without changing their name. Nick and I explore the reasons for that, and the possibility that soon the teams that work for these companies will also move on every year or two.
Nick explains why bitcoin isn't always a cybercriminal's best friend. It turns out that cryptography isn't proof against rubber hose cryptanalysis, or maybe even plea bargaining.
Drawing from my research for an article about why bias in face recognition has been overblown, I note that Canada, France, and the entire Western world is imposing sanctions on Clearview AI for privacy violations, but Clearview AI is the only U.S. company doing as good or better at face recognition than Chinese and Russian suppliers. I argue that's because a dubious racial bias narrative has forced IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta to retreat from the market, leaving us at the mercy of Russian and Chinese tech.
Megan explains why financial regulators and not the FBI turn out to be the biggest and most effective government enemies of end-to-end encryption; they've fined JPMorgan Chase a cool $200 million for using WhatsApp and other unbreakable encrypted messaging systems. Say, wasn't there a chip thirty years ago that would have solved that problem -- Chipper? Clipper?
Finally, in quick hits,
- I point out that soft power isn't always America's friend, as shown by Intel's apology to the Chinese public for obeying U.S. law, Apple's determination to double down on deepening its dependence on a Chinese supply chain, and a SenseTime IPO that was enormously successful for everyone except U.S. sanctions and U.S. investors.
- Scott shows the remarkable erosion of Silicon Valley's power in conflicts with Putin's Russia. Google and Meta are facing huge fines for not taking down content Russia doesn't like. And they're losing lawsuits to Russians whose content they have taken down. In fact, they're losing so big that I expect Breitbart to bring its next Big Tech censorship lawsuit in Moscow.
Download the 388th Episode (mp3)
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why is a self-described "often libertarian" blog published at a self-proclaimed libertarian website publishing this authoritarian right-wingery?
Never pegged the Rev as a ChiCom bootlicker. Curious how I missed that.
I don't understand why US internet companies open themselves up to actions in foreign courts. The internet's nature means Google doesn't have to set foot in Russia (or Europe) at all. They should just run their entire operation out of the US and tell these courts they don't have jurisdiction and they can go pound sand.
(This is one place where the US government really does have a role. Protecting our companies and, in this case, laws that imposed obligations on our companies, from hostile foreign interference is a legitimate role of government).
Recently comments came up in a game development forum I follow where Blizzard is developing a mobile version of their famed Diablo franchise.
While the company doing the work is based in Taiwan Blizzard had to make changes to the game to account for demands made by the Chinese government, namely eliminate the witch doctor class but more importantly remove all black characters.
The important take away is how strongly the government of China influences the content of games that could be played by their people and forcing the content they do not like to not appear in any iteration of the game. Their influence over movies is already well know but most people do not understand how they affect the gaming industry
I don't understand why Stewart Baker says that Twitter et al. are "hapless enablers." Willing, even enthusiastic, enablers would be more accurate.