Tencent Loses $35 Billion of Value as WeChat Ban Roils Markets

[Yaseen1]

u.s end is near and they are committing suicide with every passing day and nato alliance is much weaker today as compared to past and at verge of collapse,ultimately u.s will be left with few of their allies and will face defeat

 

[gambit]

So you think all the us apps keeps the data in local countries where they operate and us gov doesn’t have access to that data ?
You r living in fools paradise mate

The US government needs two things to access data:

- Cooperation
- Justification

The first item -- cooperation -- can be between the government and the company.

The second item -- justification -- means the government must explain to the court why it needs the data.

Even if there is an agreement of cooperation between the government and the company, usually the company would ask for justification anyway.

For China, the government needs neither. The government simply issue an order -- not a request -- but an order and the company must comply without asking for justification.

There are three types of law:

- Statutory
- Case
- Administrative

For what we are talking about, we are concerned with 'Statutory' and 'Administrative' laws.

Take this law: 'Do not perform X'. This is an example of statutory law. It is simple and direct. It is general and principled.

Now, take this law: 'Do not perform X UNLESS it is a full moon, Venus is in the House of Mars, and it is midnight.' The 'unless' conditions for when it is permissible to perform X make this an 'administrative law'. An 'administrative' law is essentially a legal regulation that contains the what, why, where, and when details.

China's National Security Law is 'statutory'. It was written in general terms. It was not a mistake. It was written that way in order to give the government broad investigative and enforcement powers. If you have access to data and if the government orders you to give a, b, and c data, you must comply. It does not matter the geographical location of that data. If you have access to the US server, it is your data and you must comply. The law does not care if you own or can access the data or not. The law simply say that you must comply and if the investigator found out you have access to the US server, his power is broad enough that he can, in the name of the Chinese government, order you to access the US server. If you are a Chinese citizen, the law is broad enough to make you a spy for China and you must comply. That means if you do not own the data but can access the US server, you must comply.

 

[scherz]

The US government needs two things to access data:

- Cooperation
- Justification

The first item -- cooperation -- can be between the government and the company.

The second item -- justification -- means the government must explain to the court why it needs the data.

Even if there is an agreement of cooperation between the government and the company, usually the company would ask for justification anyway.

For China, the government needs neither. The government simply issue an order -- not a request -- but an order and the company must comply without asking for justification.

There are three types of law:

- Statutory
- Case
- Administrative

For what we are talking about, we are concerned with 'Statutory' and 'Administrative' laws.

Take this law: 'Do not perform X'. This is an example of statutory law. It is simple and direct. It is general and principled.

Now, take this law: 'Do not perform X UNLESS it is a full moon, Venus is in the House of Mars, and it is midnight.' The 'unless' conditions for when it is permissible to perform X make this an 'administrative law'. An 'administrative' law is essentially a legal regulation that contains the what, why, where, and when details.

China's National Security Law is 'statutory'. It was written in general terms. It was not a mistake. It was written that way in order to give the government broad investigative and enforcement powers. If you have access to data and if the government orders you to give a, b, and c data, you must comply. It does not matter the geographical location of that data. If you have access to the US server, it is your data and you must comply. The law does not care if you own or can access the data or not. The law simply say that you must comply and if the investigator found out you have access to the US server, his power is broad enough that he can, in the name of the Chinese government, order you to access the US server. If you are a Chinese citizen, the law is broad enough to make you a spy for China and you must comply. That means if you do not own the data but can access the US server, you must comply.

HAHAHHA as if the NSA needs any true justification. They could simply come up with a pseudo argument. If you believe the state works by the rule, than you are more than naiv.

Also your beloved USA democratic system is a fake democracy. If you have the choice between two bad options, is it a real option? Sure China is not better, but atlease they people are not blind or are not being lied with a fake democratic system.

 

[Leviza]

The US government needs two things to access data:

- Cooperation
- Justification

The first item -- cooperation -- can be between the government and the company.

The second item -- justification -- means the government must explain to the court why it needs the data.

Even if there is an agreement of cooperation between the government and the company, usually the company would ask for justification anyway.

For China, the government needs neither. The government simply issue an order -- not a request -- but an order and the company must comply without asking for justification.

There are three types of law:

- Statutory
- Case
- Administrative

For what we are talking about, we are concerned with 'Statutory' and 'Administrative' laws.

Take this law: 'Do not perform X'. This is an example of statutory law. It is simple and direct. It is general and principled.

Now, take this law: 'Do not perform X UNLESS it is a full moon, Venus is in the House of Mars, and it is midnight.' The 'unless' conditions for when it is permissible to perform X make this an 'administrative law'. An 'administrative' law is essentially a legal regulation that contains the what, why, where, and when details.

China's National Security Law is 'statutory'. It was written in general terms. It was not a mistake. It was written that way in order to give the government broad investigative and enforcement powers. If you have access to data and if the government orders you to give a, b, and c data, you must comply. It does not matter the geographical location of that data. If you have access to the US server, it is your data and you must comply. The law does not care if you own or can access the data or not. The law simply say that you must comply and if the investigator found out you have access to the US server, his power is broad enough that he can, in the name of the Chinese government, order you to access the US server. If you are a Chinese citizen, the law is broad enough to make you a spy for China and you must comply. That means if you do not own the data but can access the US server, you must comply.

Nice theory and lecture
It’s easy to write stuff from any text books
But in reality things are totally different

 

[beijingwalker]

Banning whatever companies won't save US crashing economy, Chinese economy is booming and US is crashing, Trump's fight against China doesn't seem to hurt China or help US the slightest.

 

[faithfulguy]

The US government needs two things to access data:

- Cooperation
- Justification

The first item -- cooperation -- can be between the government and the company.

The second item -- justification -- means the government must explain to the court why it needs the data.

Even if there is an agreement of cooperation between the government and the company, usually the company would ask for justification anyway.

For China, the government needs neither. The government simply issue an order -- not a request -- but an order and the company must comply without asking for justification.

There are three types of law:

- Statutory
- Case
- Administrative

For what we are talking about, we are concerned with 'Statutory' and 'Administrative' laws.

Take this law: 'Do not perform X'. This is an example of statutory law. It is simple and direct. It is general and principled.

Now, take this law: 'Do not perform X UNLESS it is a full moon, Venus is in the House of Mars, and it is midnight.' The 'unless' conditions for when it is permissible to perform X make this an 'administrative law'. An 'administrative' law is essentially a legal regulation that contains the what, why, where, and when details.

China's National Security Law is 'statutory'. It was written in general terms. It was not a mistake. It was written that way in order to give the government broad investigative and enforcement powers. If you have access to data and if the government orders you to give a, b, and c data, you must comply. It does not matter the geographical location of that data. If you have access to the US server, it is your data and you must comply. The law does not care if you own or can access the data or not. The law simply say that you must comply and if the investigator found out you have access to the US server, his power is broad enough that he can, in the name of the Chinese government, order you to access the US server. If you are a Chinese citizen, the law is broad enough to make you a spy for China and you must comply. That means if you do not own the data but can access the US server, you must comply.

Good explanation . But not thorough enough. Can you explain how the FISA court pretty much make US like communist China when it comes to surveillance. Not just foreign but domestic as well. Even a presidential candidate can be wiretapped.

 

[rent4country]

LOL, don't you know almost all Tecent's revenue is come from China?

And hit what you dotard cat fist barely hit anything, and do you know how big a role Tecent played in China, basically Tecent's communication softwares is the reason of many who buy smart phone, so if the dotard wont to ban business for any US company with Tecent, it is not Tecent's loss, but the ending time of Apple and so are your hype-inflated stock market.

Just go ahead and try I bet dotard will fold like a toilet paper soon

For someone trying to convince us that this hit is nothing, you certainly got triggered.

 

[rent4country]

Yup. We made Trump stupider so he can help infect America with the freedom virus.

Feng, why on earth would anyone prefer your cradle to grave slavish and brainwashing virus over the freedom virus.

 

[Feng Leng]

Feng, why on earth would anyone prefer your cradle to grave slavish and brainwashing virus over of the freedom virus.

LOL your question makes no sense. But then I guess this is expected...

55% of coronavirus patients still have neurological problems three months later: study

 

[rent4country]

LOL your question makes no sense. But then I guess this is expected...

55% of coronavirus patients still have neurological problems three months later: study

Feng, I am not surprised you did not get it. The sustained CCP brainwashing from cradle to grave makes it difficult for you to comprehend the desire for freedom.

 

[beijingwalker]

Feng, I am not surprised you did it get it. The sustained CCP brainwashing from cradle to grave makes it difficult for you to comprehend the desire for freedom.

Haha, freedom to mass shooting on the streets, freedom to die from viruses like flies...

 

[Feng Leng]

Feng, I am not surprised you did it get it. The sustained CCP brainwashing from cradle to grave makes it difficult for you to comprehend the desire for freedom.

Freedom to get herded into reservations and your land taken from you by white people after they infect you with smallpox blankets

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

There isn't a true democracy in the world.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

How? This is not a unilateral decision by US but a response to China's own decision to ban US apps. Free and fair trade is a two-way street. How can China freely operate its apps in US while banning US apps in China?

Besides, I don't see much support for China's position on this issue.

China bans them because they are an authoritarian regime. So the US bans them because???

In a 'free' country, unilateral moves like banning products because of their origin is not allowed without a mountain of evidence to support it.

There is no such thing as a free world narrative

Sure there isnt

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

 

[rent4country]

Good explanation . But not thorough enough. Can you explain how the FISA court pretty much make US like communist China when it comes to surveillance. Not just foreign but domestic as well. Even a presidential candidate can be wiretapped.

The big distinctions in this matter, between the US and your country, is really quite simple.

1. Existence of a court system. America unlike China has a court/FISA court where our intelligence or federal law enforcement has to seek permission for a wiretap or access. In your country, the CCP demands it of companies with no court approval needed

2. Companies can pushback and go to court. in America, regardless of the FISA warrant approval, companies can still push back and refuse to give information to the US govt by seeking a regular court to intervene. In your country, Chinese companies have to give up the information with no such recourse.

3. American agencies have to make a case in the FISA courts ONE USER at a time, while China can demand the entire user database upon demand.

We are not remotely close to your cradle to grave surveillance system of citizens