Huawei crowded in American network space
This effect on technology products, especially foreign products, has always been worried.The U.S. -European allies monitoring and listening have been sued the world.At present, the United States and the West have a performance of 5G about the development of 5G in the development of China mobile communications giants, and it is also a performance in this regard, because the United States always thinks that other countries will also engage in spy activities through the Internet like the United States.Although Huawei shows that there is no back door, as long as this possibility exists, as long as this possibility exists, the fear of this will not disappear.
The enclosure launched by the United States to Huawei has shown that the United States has mentioned information security on the highest internal affairs and diplomatic agenda.In fact, the suppression of Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and Hikvision recently has extended the traditional geopolitical practice of the United States to the Internet space.From the perspective of the United States, the larger the network space for products such as Huawei and other Chinese companies, it shows the decrease in the share of the United States; the larger the network space of Huawei (which can be measured by Huawei's products globally), the United States can collectThe smaller the information.Although the United States can also invade Huawei (in fact, it has also invaded), the cost of invasion is much higher than that of the United States from the products of the United States from its own products, and it cannot even guarantee whether it can be collected.Of course, China has always been skeptical of information products in the United States, so that it is regarded as the market is not open enough.All other countries that connect with the Internet have concerns about this, but there is no effective way.
Internally, the amount of information controlled by a small amount of private technology companies may have surpassed the amount controlled by any government; in addition, these companies can also refuse to disclose information involving national security to the government to protect customers' privacy.
Traditionally, the eldest brother, the government, who controls the information.British writer Owa's 1984 vividly described how the eldest brother controls the society through various ways.In recent years, with the rapid development of the Internet, 1984 became popular because people saw a more authentic 1984.
However, people have also seen that today's big brother is different from before.If the old elder brother was the government, now there is an extra elder brother, the information technology company.The existence of the government has public purposes because the government is considered to represent public interests.What about the company?Does the company exist for public purposes?The company represents private or public interest?British economist Adamsmi has the assumptions of pursuing private interests to guide common interests, but in the information age, this is still a hypothesis, because information companies often damage public interests in pursuit of private interests.
It is found that when there are thousands of employees in Amazon, Amazon does not seek user permits when they listen to customers' instructions by customers on Echo intelligent speakers.Although Amazon executives claim that recording can help improve its Alexa digital assistant, most people think that this is the company's Owaor -style big brother.
The Video of the Muslim Holocaust of New Zealand in March this year was broadcast live on a thin face, which was even more outrageous.It is generally believed that the Facebook company did not adopt immediately and effectively delete, which greatly damaged public interests.
Anyway, such things are constantly happening.At the company level, it is easy to evolve into national politics and even international politics through the Internet.
what to do?So far, the means of negative impact on the public technology company may have a negative impact on the public, which is still very traditional, that is, the government representing the public interest to supervise these technology companies.In this regard, society still has a great consensus.The public and politicians have been asking for regulatory actions.(Of course, many people, especially the intellectuals, oppose this. They always think that any supervision is harmful to the freedom of information, and the free circulation of information is the core of traditional freedom of speech.) But even some technology bosses also acknowledged that the governmentSupervision is definitely necessary.For example, CEO Zuckerberg has recently called on governments to play a more positive role in regulating the Internet, to formulate clear rules for harmful content, election integrity, personal privacy and data circulation.Essence
Anti -market monopoly is also a very important measure, although this is also a very traditional method.The European Union recently issued the third largest ticket to Google, punishing its three -year abuse of market dominance.In terms of data privacy, the General Data Protection Regulation regulations promulgated by the European Union require that all companies operating in the European Union (regardless of whether they are located in the European Union) must comply with this regulation.It should be said that the EU's measures for information supervision are by far and harsh.This may be because the EU itself does not have a large technology company, which will not hinder their companies and economic behaviors.
How to supervise the problem of technology companies
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is also re -reviewing antitrust policies to adapt to a new era of highly concentrated wealth and economy.Some Democratic candidates who decided to participate in the US presidential election in 2020 have also made suggestions for curbing the monopoly market for the technology giants.Among them, Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren proposed the most aggressive solution. She suggested that the science and technology giants should be prohibited from operating platforms and provide her own products on the platform.
However, even if people have a consensus on the issue of supervision of technology companies, to what extent to answer how to supervise and regulate?The problem is not easy.For example, people think that Warren's suggestions will also lead to some negative results, and even go to another extreme.These platforms currently provide some convenient, low prices and even free services, and consumers can obtain many benefits from it.What's more serious is that once the technology platform is transformed into a common platform for supervision, it may give those regulatory agencies that may be reduced to regulatory prisoners, that is, transfer power from technology companies to regulators, from a elder brother from a elder brotherTurn to another elder brother.
Although technology companies must solve the potential national security threats caused by their products, how to solve is still the key.In 2016, Apple Company refused to unlock the iPhone mobile phones and Google employees who insisted on the company's defense and intelligence contracts in adhering to the company.In the example of the Federal Investigation Bureau, Apple CEO Tim Cook is worried that adding the back door in the iPhone may cause theft and invasion, which may cause greater harm to national interests.The competition between the country's space between the country is even more heated, and there is no sign that it will ease.
Since entering the Internet era, a major trend is: For the inside, whoever controls the information has controlled power; to the outside world, whoever controls the information will control the world.This is an unprecedented battle.So far, although society is also part of this power dispute, the dispute between power is basically the country within the country, which is basically between politics and capital. In international politics, a small amountDo it between.In this struggle, who killed the government and the company and the country?Maybe still.This situation is particularly not obvious within the West.
According to Marx's point of view, the economy is the foundation and politics is the upper -level building.At present, economic technology has undergone fundamental changes, and corresponding changes must occur.The economic and technological foundation is clear, that is, not only the largest amount of wealth and economic power are mastered by large companies, but the largest amount of information is also mastered by them.However, what is the political upper building?The current upper -level buildings are obviously less adaptable to the economic foundation.What is the new upper -level building?How to build?Who will build it?These are unknown.Whether it is internal order or international order, the world is facing a huge uncertain future again.
The author is the National University of Singapore
Professor of East Asia Research Institute
The article only represents personal point of view
