[aneutron]

So let me get this straight: The US government directly buying stakes in Intel is A-OK, but any involvement from the CCP in any form in any company is Not Good ?

If the only issue at hand was indeed security vulnerabilities, then I can see many ways that can constructively address that (e.g. Since a large number of SKUs deployed in the US are managed by the Telcos, then force them to finance the support for continued firmware updates).

The US will probably be collecting the reciprocity of their actions, and they won't like it ... It's a very childish game they're playing and it will hurt them in 15 years time ...

[mikkupikku]

> So let me get this straight: The US government directly buying stakes in Intel is A-OK

For America, yes. For China, no.

> but any involvement from the CCP in any form in any company is Not Good ?

For America, yes. For China, no.

This isn't a case where the "principled high road" has any practical meaning. This is a "You want your side to win but you want their side to lose? You're a hypocrite!" situation.

[Tyrek]

Sure the "principled high road" has meaning. Coming out of the 90's, the US had a dominant position in international institutions and a 'vibe' that it was willing to subordinate its interests in favor of the global community. The post GWOT shift to a 'selfish' position, clearly illustrated here by your argument, reflects the absolute cratering of international public opinion, and frankly the collective loss of trust in a less selfish America.

[b112]

There's a difference between buying shares, something Western governments have done forever, and owning controlling interest.

There's also a difference between owning some shares, which is hands off, and having no legal blocks to killing the CEO's family if he doesn't do as wished.

You're comparing false equivalences.

Chinese ownership of corporations is entirely different in this context. Even with the current US leadership, no comparison. None.

[FactolSarin]

I don't know if you've been paying attention lately, but the US Government is very hands on when it comes to directing businesses these days, and Congress lets the President do whatever he wants, whether strictly legal or not.

Do you really not think the current President wouldn't lean as hard on a US corporation as he needed to in order to get whatever he wanted?

[fsloth]

To me the specific state compliance mechanism is irrelevant here if a third country simply cares about data and security.

Of course both governments utilize all measures they can to collect intelligence.

And then decide how much of that data they share with partners, and when. This has considerable security implications.

[llm_nerd]

"Chinese ownership of corporations is entirely different in this context"

There is no difference. The US does not effectively have any law or checks on the power of the presidency at this point. Various tech companies had executives literally enlisted in the armed forces. The government has shown, repeatedly, that it will financially penalize any company that doesn't serve their agenda. It has controlled broadcasters and social media and financial organizations.

As an outsider looking in, any difference between the US and China is mostly illusory. It has all been revealed to be make believe.

[usef-]

Do you think it's childish in the other direction too? They have been limiting many US products for similar reasons for many years now.

[watwut]

To be entirely honest, yes, American leadership is currently very childish while Chinese one is everything but childish. And the simple observable consequence is that China is winning whatever pissing contest is going on while America is busy shooting itself into own foot, applying bandage and then claiming it won cause it is not bleeding anymore.

[rayiner]

> So let me get this straight: The US government directly buying stakes in Intel is A-OK, but any involvement from the CCP in any form in any company is Not Good ?

Yes.

[EasyMark]

The US can't force intel to put back doors in products, but in China you can't refuse to do the same. It really just boils down to that. It is very possible for China to force a Chinese owned company to put in backdoors in hardware and firmware as demanded by it's intelligence agencies. The alternative is going to prison for treason. Network equipment is Prime Real Estate for such a directive. It's a no brainer for me unless tp-link can prove that they have completely moved away from being Chinese owned. If you have any proof that the US government has had Intel, AMD, apple, etc put in backdoors I would love to see it or documents that prove they can force such backdoors.

[aneutron]

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

[guerrilla]

I think it's naive to assuming competing states would be fair. Most of what both say is just propaganda. Their main purpose is to serve their respective overclasses, nothing else.

[kortilla]

> The US government directly buying stakes in Intel is A-OK, but any involvement from the CCP in any form in any company is Not Good ?

Yes, it’s the US government. Of course it thinks advancing US gov controlled technology is good and CCP influence in the US is bad. That’s a completely rational stance and it’s not even hypocritical until the CCP bans some US product and the US gov complains.

[Yokolos]

> it’s not even hypocritical until the CCP bans some US product and the US gov complains.

It's not even hypocritical then. Both sides are protecting their own interests. These interests are partly at odds to each other. They're going to do what they believe is necessary, even if it "seems" hypocritical. That's not a bad thing, that's just ... how things work. China isn't innocent of this either. It's so weird how people are always painting this as "US bad".

[herbst]

Now imagine your not American. Now you have the choice between 2 nations you don't trust. Which one are you going to take? The one you don't trust that hasn't done you anything personally, or the one that recently went rogue and is making a point of it to make everyone's life a little more miserable, actively?