Why are ships in Chinese waters disappearing from tracking systems like AIS recently? This story from @Reuters explains a lot, except that it's not due to the PIPL as mentioned in the story.
Off the grid: Chinese data law adds to global shipping disruption reuters.com/world/china/of…
AIS tracks the movement of ships, thus does not cover personal info as under the PIPL. Instead, the applicable law is more likely to be the Data Security Law, which entered into force on Sept 1st, or 1 month before the Chinese ships started to mysteriously disappear in AIS.
As I tweeted 5 months ago, the DSL added a new category called "core data”, which includes those on national security, which could potentially include data on the movements of ships (including warships).
My reading was confirmed 5 months later by the famous CCTV investigative journalism program《焦点访谈》(Focus Report), which reported how some foreign data companies and governments used AIS base stations in China to track sensitive military info.
In view of this, the Chinese government started to crack down on such activities pursuant to the Anti-Spying Law and DSL, and then AIS became collateral damage.
Again, as I repeatedly stressed before, China is dead serious about its data security: cambridge.org/core/books/big…
and it's still not too late for @Google@Meta@Twitter to heed my warnings, especially on the compliance issues under the new PIPL!
Thanks for alerting me to this @pstAsiatech. Interesting essay, but I disagree with both the diagnosis and the prescription by Matt Pottinger and David Feith: 1. It is true that China is tightening the control on data, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its first priority is
this "strategy of global data mercantilism". Instead, as I've stated repeatedly, the control of data is mainly done to ensure "cyber security", as "there is no national security without cyber security", as famously stated by Xi.
Why would you kill your goose if all you want are the golden eggs? The goose got killed because its honks are too noisy, and the owner values peace and order first, with little regard to golden eggs
China's WTO Ambassador Li Chenggang published an op-ed on the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the WTO in the People's Daily yesterday.
Titled "Playing a colorful movement on the WTO stage", it confirmed several of my observations over the years: paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2021…
1. The overall assessment, as noted by Amb. Li at the beginning of the essay, is that China has grown from a "rule-taker" to a "rule-maker". This is an observation I first made 11 years ago in a paper with the same title, available on @SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=19417….
More specifically, the essay notes that China is the "main force" of rules negotiation, "Top Students" in Policy Review, and the "night watchman" of the dispute settlement mechanism, which were all explored in my 2010 paper.
The National Social Science Fund of China just issued its list of major award projects. Not surprisingly, many of the projects are on the study of XJP thoughts or new era theories. What I found most interesting, however, are 2 super-secretive projects with redacted project titles
The first is #27, a project by Liu Wanghong from Nanjing. He seems to have been working on Geographic Information Security Laws and Regulations. Does this mean that another law on Geographic Information Security is in the making? This seems to be confirmed by the recent Didi case
The other with a missing title is #173, which is by Xin Qiang from Fudan, who specializes in Taiwan policy issues.
Let me guess the title: The Constitutional Framework for the Governance of Taiwan after Reunification?
Interesting new essays from @ChairmanRabbit explaining the logic of the "new era", with this one explaining the rationale behind China's "supply-side structural reform", which is very different from the "supply-side economics" championed by Trump. mp.weixin.qq.com/s/-7IZBGNd8Hm9…
China's "supply-side structural reform", instead, focuses on the production side, i.e., getting rid of those that are outdated, unneeded by the market, not internationally competitive, & wasting resources, etc, as @ChairmanRabbit wrote.
But that's exactly the problem.
Who's to decide which industries are outdated, unneeded by the market, not internationally competitive, & wasting resources? According to the "supply-side structural reform" which @ChairmanRabbit supports, it would be by the government and the bureaucrats, not by the market.
New crackdown on online streamers?
CCTV News reported today two cases of tax evasion by two Chinese online streamers, who were respectively fined 65 & 27 mil RMB.
The cases are interesting for 3 reasons:
1. They were caught by the tax authorities using "tax big data analysis" by the Hangzhou tax bureau. I guess that's one reason why big data is getting so important in China.
2. Their alleged wrongdoings were converting what they earned in the streaming business from personal income to the business income of the sole proprietorship. I'm not a tax expert, but if I remember correctly this is a widespread practice among China's celebrities and
Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang to the US gave a speech at the Dialogue with the Brookings Institution Board of Trustees earlier this week. Here are a few interesting passages: china-embassy.org/eng/zmgxss/202…
1. "The US says that its China policy is for defending the “rules-based international order” and ensuring the implementation of “rules of the road”. But what are the rules? Who made these rules? Who are the traffic police? The US has not made itself clear on these questions."
These questions pretty much summed up China's problems with the so-called “rules-based international order”, which I've been tweeting on since March.