Article is paywalled so I can't read past the first 2 paragraphs, but I still don't understand what the controversy about this is. EUV was developed with significant input and resources from the US government [1], so I understand the rationale behind export controls there. But immersion lithography is quite different. My understanding is it was proposed in published papers as early as the 80s, but was industrialized by ASML in the late 90s. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the US government was involved with immersion lithography in any way.
I'm sure the actual legal mechanisms are complicated, but I don't see any justification for the US imposing export controls on technology developed in-house by a European company.
ASML got an export license until December. Maybe they'll get it renewed. The SCMP is jumping the gun a bit when they suggest that ASML will be prevented from exporting DUV equipment come January.
I'm sure the actual legal mechanisms are complicated, but I don't see any justification for the US imposing export controls on technology developed in-house by a European company.
It's possible the scenario is something like this: American company XYZ has key patent on feature ABC that is required to build this type of hardware. ASML licenses ABC patent from XYZ. If they sell the resulting product to the Chinese, then the US comes after XYZ for violating some sort of export law that prohibits granting IP licenses to people who sell to the Bad Guys. So XYZ is more or less forced to include export-control language in their patent license agreement.
There are probably several such guns aimed at ASML's head. The US is really, really good at coming up with things like that.
You mention there probably several such guns aimed at ASML's head and I have no idea what set of carrot+sticks are involved but want to point out it might not just be sticks/guns.
It might additionally be an appeal to ASML or Dutch self-interest. China does not have a good reputation for respecting IP (and I do not think this is just propaganda.) ASML is not somehow exempt to that medium/long-term in one way or the other and has already had issues with that vis-a-vis China (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/critical-chip-firm-asml-says...)
Sometimes a corporate entity like ASML needs government(s) to take a stand so that there is a more level playing field so they don't lose out to local/smaller competitors who take a different approach.
ASML is capable of deciding for itself whether it's risky from an IP perspective to sell to company X or Y. It's not ASML that is asking for these export controls. In fact, ASML executives have been warning that these export controls will spur Chinese investment in indigenous chip-making equipment providers, threatening ASML's business over the long term.
I completely agree that this is a significant risk of the export controls.
But China was already expected to climb their way into semiconductor manufacturing with significant investment. What, were they not going to do that? ASML was threatened long-term either way.
But I agree it will definitely focus minds in China on the problem and lead to some acceleration of their progress.
Under Chinese law every Chinese citizen is obligated to spy for the state in such matters. Being outside China is not much help, the Chinese are known to perform renditions or to threaten family members living in China.
> ASML says ex-China employee misappropriated data relating to its critical chip technology
> Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of
well there is no mention of active spying, nor obligation. The original text in chinese sounds even more vague. I don't know how it will be interpreted by a judge but I think personal obligation is a bit exaggerated.
Law scholars disagree. "Citizen, national security requires you to give us all computer files you have access to regarding X technology. It also requires you to keep quiet about this".
> I don't know how it will be interpreted by a judge
You realize that in China judges do what the government says in national security cases.
And this is just what is written in the law. There is no written law that the police is allowed to harass your family, yet it happens all the time.
Which law scholars? I actually have a close friend who is a judge. And what you described is not heard of in his career.
> And this is just what is written in the law. There is no written law that the police is allowed to harass your family, yet it happens all the time.
It is very hard to have a good-faithed discussion if you assert generalisation like this. Do you have any statistics? Any real cases you've personally encountered? I mean I sometimes have to assume my whole life as a chinese person must be in a bubble. At least in my region, what so true. That's just my 2 cents.
Thanks for searching on the internet for links to news stories. I should clarify that I was simply trying to add my personal experience into the discussion. I'm not denying there are published in main stream media. But can you personally verify all these reports? I don't think so. Will anyone research in chinese resources? I highly doubt too. So it's a different type of discussion. I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives. In my region I think the probability is extremely low. Other regions of China? I can't quantify.
> But can you personally verify all these reports?
Can you personally verify all reports about anything?
> Will anyone research in chinese resources?
What "chinese resources"? We are talking about unlawful behavior by the Chinese authorities. They are obviously not providing any records about it, and China has no free press to investigate it.
> I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives.
Just a minute of googling for publicly reported cases surfaces tens of them in recent years. Given the obvious risks of retaliation which come with public disclosure, it would be very surprising if these cases were not just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of that iceberg would be your "negatives". The complete opaqueness of China's judicial system makes it impossible to quantify them. So what? Does that somehow diminish the relevance large number of cases which we do know about?
By "false positive", I guess you mean somebody choosing to incur the risks of going public (to themselves and to their relatives back home) just in order to tell a made-up story which will gain them neither money nor fame nor any other advantage. Can you come up with a single plausible reason why anyone would want to do that?
> In my region I think the probability is extremely low.
Based on what, other than having never been personally subject to it?
I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation, beating the citzens living in China. And I am talking about incident rate/ false positive rate in the published pieces in the English / European press. I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China? It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press).
When I tried to follow a lot of news pieces like those above the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence, and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press. So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. And it's guaranteed that no journalism will be covering the other side of the coin since there is no interest or financial value.
So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty. It seems wildly exaggerated.
> I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China?
If you are in China, you will not hear anything about it from the authorities (who are acting unlawfully), from the media (which are not free) or even online (unless you go out of your way to get around the Great Firewall and access foreign news). The only way you will hear about any of this is if you, your family or close friends are subject to it. And only close relatives of a publicly known dissident are likely to be targeted. Do you know any such person? If not, there is no reason at all to expect to have ever heard about such things in China.
Outside of China, on the other hand, dissidents are free to speak out, the press is free to report what they say, and they are harder for Chinese authorities to silence. Harassing their families back home is then an obvious way to put pressure on them when personal intimidation doesn't suffice.
And that's why you are far more likely to hear about this outside of China than inside of it.
> It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press).
Are you seriously suggesting that these stories are made up by the press? That would work in China, where the media are all under control of the CCP, but not in the West. If the Wall Street Journal made up a story, the Washington Post would have a field tearing it to pieces; if the New York Times slipped, Fox News would be at its throat. And so on.
> the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence
"The chances"? Did you actually look at any of it?
> and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press
Do you have any concrete example of such a "debunking"? Or do you simply mean denial?
> So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation.
In other words, you are close friends with members of the Chinese police and/or judiciary, which is entirely controlled by the CCP, and you don't know any dissidents. Your views are thus entirely predictable.
> So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty
That's not what I responded to; I provided examples of Chinese police harassing the families of dissidents (see "straw man" above).
But if you insist, the discussion about China's national security law centers on Article 7, i.e. the part which says
All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law
That certainly seems to imply that Chinese citizens and organizations must hand over any information they may have on request from China's intelligence agencies, and was a strong argument for excluding Chinese equipment providers from information infrastructure, as seen e.g. here
As I have two kids I don't have much time but I'll try reply briefly:
I am living in Europe so I am aware of most concepts you mentioned (including straw man, which is abused in comments on HN and isn't how I answer). There are true and half true and even false information in every news story. That's the false positive I meant. I didn't look up every news, nor did anyone, including yourself I believe. I never imply Wall Street would make up stories, but it could be susceptible to biased opinions like any major media.
First of all my friends are individuals and lively human beings, they express their own opinion freely to me at least, it's independent of the political structure, being reduced to 'the controlled members' is a little insulting to their intellectual capcity. What I wish is to contribute is my real life knowledge, not links on the internet(not that I deny all their authenticity).
Once again, if you haven't read what I replied, the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy. You also said 'imply'. If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
> the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy
The translation by China Law Translate [1] of the Chinese text [2] is in agreement with those provided by Google Translate [3], DeepL Translate [4], and Bing Translator [5]. The only differences are trivial: "intelligence efforts" for some (CLT, Bing) vs "intelligence work" for others (Google, DeepL), capitalization of "State" versus plain "state".
Let's go with CLT and quote the whole thing:
Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.
What does that mean? Keeping in mind that the law was drafted by the Ministry of State Security [6] ("the principal civilian intelligence, security and secret police agency of the People's Republic of China"), let's see how Wikipedia describes that kind of "efforts" or "work" [7]:
An intelligence agency is a government agency responsible for the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information in support of law enforcement, national security, military, public safety, and foreign policy objectives.
Means of information gathering are both overt and covert and may include espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources. The assembly and propagation of this information is known as intelligence analysis or intelligence assessment.
Do you see the word "spy" anywhere in that text? It's only used once on the entire page, in the title of an external link to a popular article about the 17 intelligence agencies which the US sees fit to run. Nobody serious says "spy". But everybody knows what "intelligence work" means.
So, what Article 7 says is that any Chinese citizen or organization must "support, assist, and cooperate" with China's intelligence agencies, which are in the business of collecting, analyzing and exploiting information. And just in case there's some doubt about where that work can be carried out, Article 10 clarifies that "national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad".
> You also said 'imply'.
Yes. What's wrong with "imply"?
> If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
I have no problem believing that your CCP friends are more knowledgeable about the internal workings of China's police and judiciary than I or just about any external observer; the CCP is intentionally opaque. For the exact same reason, I have an effectively insurmountable problem believing that they can be entirely open with you (assuming that you are not part of the same context) or that you could be entirely open about governance issues in a public forum such as this.
If you are really unwise I suppose you could ask them what's going on with Peng Lifa [8] and his family [9], considering the recent anniversary. (To be clear: I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't post in public about it if I were you.)
It's clear that you interpret the Chinese judiciary system as less transparent and fair than the democratic western counterparts. Yet you analyse and interpret laws in the same fashion as a functioning law system. By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. So analysing the text would make no sense. China doesn't have a Common Law system and almost certainly the law is exercised differently in different regions. I am simply adding my interpretation of how they are perceived in my limited circle.
It's also interesting you referring my 'CCP friends'. As if it's a category of people or an attribute. Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member (and certainly if taking office).
Thirdly there are countless protests going on everyday. That's the reason I'm adding my insights as most 'chinese resources' are on social media, transient messages and posts, almost never get covered in the mainstream median. No one denies their existence. But like any movement, there are good and bad sides. What you can reach easily is very likely the end of long pipeline of biased selection. I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary).
Besides it'll be very unlikely that our local judge would know anything about a high profile case like LiFa Peng (would a local officer know a FBI investigation?). These are only visible in the west because they have been escalated to the extreme. Most protests are actually followed up a lot on social media, with the biggest noticable change perhaps being COVID restriction lifted.
> By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context.
China is commonly regarded as a "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") jurisdiction [1]. That doesn't mean that the law is irrelevant; it means that the law is applied if and when it suits the CCP to do so.
So if you want to know which powers the CCP is interested in wielding (like the ability to order any Chinese citizen or organization anywhere in the world to assist "intelligence efforts"), you should definitely read the law.
> Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member
Hardly. As of December 31, 2022, total membership of the Communist Party of China was 98.041 million (taken straight from the "Intra-Party Statistical Bulletin of the Communist Party of China" [2]). More than 99 million people live in the top five cities alone - and there are about a hundred more counting at least one million inhabitants each [3].
> (and certainly if taking office)
That I certainly believe.
> I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary).
OK I wanted to pass for valuing both of our time until I read the links...
[1] What a blog of pseudo social/political science is that, I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research. For reference there's always the common complaint of injustice in China attributing to 'Rule by man' [https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45293/] instead of rule of law. The legalist (法家) school of thoughts have nothing to do with it (well it was the school to make small weak country in terms of man power to be more efficient in agriculture and economy among other warring states but still doesn't fit).
If you read the actual constitution it mandates the democratic dictation against the enemy of the 'proletariat' (i.e public).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democratic_dictator...]
So it is unbelievably consistently 'lawful'. I wouldn't want anyone in the world to read chinese law but please bring logical and well researched papers I'll be very interested to read.
The list of wrongly accused is from 2013 but majority is from 2019-now. There are 374 resulted in jail sentence (with some suspended). No one is doubting it is bad and my uncle had been jailed in the 90s wrongly over his superiors corruption so you can tell the prevalence back then. Another big factor is that in recent years due to quick response to reports, more cases are being reported to authorities [https://www.12377.cn/]. How updated is that list I can't know. Is the equivalent incident rate 1000 times lower in the US, or even zero? I haven't checked.
Party member numbers: I meant anyone with at least 3rd tier city level HuKou (which is the insanely backward ancient land-born-based rights for local resources). Use my hometown as an example, while the whole population is 3,4 million (4 counties in one city). The 'urban' HuKou is only 540,000 Using googled stats https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_22126669https://www.statista.com/statistics/270163/age-distribution-...
there are fewer people if you account for people aged between 20 and 60 (usually you would need to go through the previous prep youth group stage). The membership is as easy as joining a local gym. All my older family members are in party despite that they do nothing related to the government. Basically I'm saying party and population in 3rd city level HuKou holder are one.
Lastly I apologies if my commenting in English is so terrible that what I meant by 'bias' is confusing you. These might all be true but funneling one-sided or eye-catching stories only is the definition of biased reporting for me. Yes we don't have US/UK style press but it doesn't mean they don't get covered.
Lots of nice things, sure. So did the Soviet Union's constitution (I still have a copy of that one somewhere). But then there is the little detail of whether the words are actually applied in practice.
Here's what happened when a Chinese law professor had the audacity to suggest that the Party should actually abide by the constitution:
I have to apologies it must be my commenting that you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog on Amnesty International website. I don't what's it to do with Amnesty Inter but my point being it is a stretch to conceptualise '法家' relating the so called 'Rule by law'. Obviously I didn't study law or philosophy but unless you're an expert in the area I doubt that it is an established main stream theory. Just because it's published by Harvard or Cambridge press isn't necessarily a guarantee of high quality research or unbiased reporting.
>It's a live spreadsheet started in 2013.
I mean if you regard it a lawless society in China then it's actually rather impressive, extrapolate by a factor of 1000 (if you want to estimate the 'iceberg') will give you 300,000 cases (assuming all true positives) out 1.4 billion over the course of 10 years. Again please don't twist my meaning.
> you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog
Ah, so your point wasn't
> I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research
? Well then simply ignore the words "rule by law" and go read Xi Jinping's article. Or is he too insufficiently qualified to opine on China's governance?
> The membership is as easy as joining a local gym.
Your local gyms must be very different from any I've ever seen. Here's how the South Chine Morning Post described the process in 2021 [1]:
Joining the party is usually an arduous process that can take two to three years.
Potential members must apply to their local party organisations, initiating a multi-year process with more than 20 steps to determine their qualification, including submitting a formal application, meeting with the local party organisers and attending party study sessions.
Candidates also need a party member to act as a guide and mentor, who they often find through party organisations at their work and schools.
After about a year of study, applicants need to pass written tests. They must also pass background checks – those with criminal records or whose family members have such records may fail these.
If they pass all of these steps, applicants still have to go through a probation period of at least a year before the party branch decides whether to admit them.
Which makes sense. Why else would only 0.7% of all Chinese be members?
No need to nitpick, of course I know what's the procedure to join the party.
>Potential members must apply to their local party organisations, initiating a multi-year process with more than 20 steps
All of these happen in your formal education (middle school to college, include junior club as well if you want to count in elementary school) anyway. You won't miss any of that anyway unless you are in a rural area with little resources.
Well it's still quite extraordinary to see people on HN to remind my how the process is, as if my life in China was a faded dream. If HN always prefer internet material than say personal experience then here are the two major stages:
> Well it's still quite extraordinary to see people on HN to remind my how the process is, as if my life in China was a faded dream.
No, you get "reminded" because you seem to "forget" a lot when you write about conditions in China. If somebody with little knowledge of China sees a Chinese person claiming that joining the party is just like joining a local gym, then shockingly, that person may actually believe it. I know, incredible, right?
Well I don't know, I hope people on HN are intellegent enough and their sceptical nature should prevent them from doing exactly that. Still I think it's nitpicking to attack on an analogy (which is a bit 'straw man-ish') which I admit is exaggerated.
>No, you get "reminded" because you seem to "forget" a lot when you write about conditions in China.
This is a bit strange. Are you accusing me lying about what I experienced? I repeatedly said that what I want to add is my personal experience. What you feel about the society is important. People feel they can't afford housing even when they have good income on paper. One can live in China without experiencing any of problems you mentioned. Another person might differ. What exactly did I 'forget' in my own life?
Difficult yes. Enough to stop a highly motivated nation state with massive talent pool and economic resources to dedicate to the task? No.
Especially not the DUV machines.
EUV is a different matter. The design that ASML uses relies on absolutely crazy optics and masks that aren't just stupidly difficult to manufacture but maintain/repair throughput use.
I don't expect China to copy their EUV design, more likely they would develop something homegrown. Largely this comes down to the light source which is actually designed/built in San Diego, not the Netherlands. It's a very complex and finicky beast that I don't think would appeal to Chinese sensibilities. More likely I expect them to come up with a cyclotron design or similar which can more easily reach higher power output (critical for lithography) but requires more centralized infrastructure (not a problem for China, but a problem for private companies).
Yeah, a cyclotron-fed X-ray Free Electron Laser (XFEL) is a brighter source than what ASML EUV machines use. But XFELs are big (often hundred-meter scale undulators, not to mention the size of the synchrotron) and very expensive. Less of an issue for a highly centralized production system, but not something you can ship to customers around the world.
Well, there are a bunch of such XFELs around (not sure if China has any yet), but they're research, not for production applications. That's how we can know they're such bright sources, how big they tend to be, how expensive they are to build, etc.
I heard a story a few years ago they actually tried to reverse engineer the machine and only ended up with multi-million dollar machine that refused to work again.
The sanctions were coming for more than a year. SMIC must have created a stockpile of machines and spares that carries them till China makes its own machines.
Dutch ASML EUV machines are build using US licensed EUV tech and US made Cymer light-sources. ASML wouldn't be able to have EUV machines today without the US being on board, so don't you think they shroud have a say where their tech is being used?
For the record, I'm not Chinese, nor USAn, nor Dutch, just an outside observer to this shit show.
The Netherlands is a small country in Europe that has always had to deal with big barbarian nations. We manage. Mostly by playing them against eachother lol.
A little slice of peaceful civilization while the rest of the world goes nuts. That's our foreign policy nowadays.
For anyone interested in the the details, China Talk released a podcast last week on the updated export controls, which discussed the enormous quantity of ASML machinery purchased by China in the leadup to the regs being tightened [1].
From Bloomberg:
"China accounted for 46% of ASML's sales in the third quarter, compared to 24% in the previous quarter and 8% in January to March."
This has been going on for a while and China had plenty of time to place orders ahead:
"Wennink tells CNBC that the average lead time of ASML's machines is roughly a year and a half to two years and that “when you look at the relatively short expectations… of a potential recession, then customers are of course not canceling any orders because they could find themselves in the back of the queue when this" ...Jan 25, 2023
Hopefully Huawei put these new 5G chips to good use and bring out some new updated devices!
I have a Huawei E6878-870 5G router which is a great device, but getting a bit long in the tooth (no eSIM support, doesn’t support the newer 5G bands, no WiFi 6, etc). I’ve tried some competitor’s devices like the ZTE MU5001, but they’re a bit plonky by comparison. Much prefer the Huawei UI and physical design, as well as seemingly better antennas.
I think they got a bit discouraged by all the sanctions against them and slowed down their device releases in recent years, but sounds like they’re overcoming that now. Would love to see some updated Huawei 5G routers soon!
Huawei is obviously taunting the US with the Mate 60. They want further sanctions at this point as it gives them exclusivity in the very large domestic market (and it appears other markets as well).
The large Chinese purchase of DUV machines is a stop gap until local alternatives are ready. Likely fairly soon.
Otherwise Huawei and friends would bide for more time and focus on non-visible but critical products and not a mass produced phone.
The Chinese don't seem that bothered by them, it enhances their national security posture to have all such chips developed and fabricated locally. They now seem to value that over the near term economic consequences of being a few generations behind for a little bit.
Fact of the matter is China has access to everything it needs to become ridiculously good at chip fabs. Money, talent pool and more critically motivation/government support.
62 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] threadI'm sure the actual legal mechanisms are complicated, but I don't see any justification for the US imposing export controls on technology developed in-house by a European company.
[1] https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ebooks/PM/EUV-Lithography...
ASML got an export license until December. Maybe they'll get it renewed. The SCMP is jumping the gun a bit when they suggest that ASML will be prevented from exporting DUV equipment come January.
It's possible the scenario is something like this: American company XYZ has key patent on feature ABC that is required to build this type of hardware. ASML licenses ABC patent from XYZ. If they sell the resulting product to the Chinese, then the US comes after XYZ for violating some sort of export law that prohibits granting IP licenses to people who sell to the Bad Guys. So XYZ is more or less forced to include export-control language in their patent license agreement.
There are probably several such guns aimed at ASML's head. The US is really, really good at coming up with things like that.
It might additionally be an appeal to ASML or Dutch self-interest. China does not have a good reputation for respecting IP (and I do not think this is just propaganda.) ASML is not somehow exempt to that medium/long-term in one way or the other and has already had issues with that vis-a-vis China (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/critical-chip-firm-asml-says...)
Sometimes a corporate entity like ASML needs government(s) to take a stand so that there is a more level playing field so they don't lose out to local/smaller competitors who take a different approach.
But China was already expected to climb their way into semiconductor manufacturing with significant investment. What, were they not going to do that? ASML was threatened long-term either way.
But I agree it will definitely focus minds in China on the problem and lead to some acceleration of their progress.
Too late... now the machine will be reverse engineered and this tech used to whatever nonsense plans this regime come up next.
Under Chinese law every Chinese citizen is obligated to spy for the state in such matters. Being outside China is not much help, the Chinese are known to perform renditions or to threaten family members living in China.
> ASML says ex-China employee misappropriated data relating to its critical chip technology
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/critical-chip-firm-asml-says...
Could you point out which law? I don't think there is something explicit like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t...
https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-real-danger-of-chinas-na...
> I don't know how it will be interpreted by a judge
You realize that in China judges do what the government says in national security cases.
And this is just what is written in the law. There is no written law that the police is allowed to harass your family, yet it happens all the time.
> And this is just what is written in the law. There is no written law that the police is allowed to harass your family, yet it happens all the time.
It is very hard to have a good-faithed discussion if you assert generalisation like this. Do you have any statistics? Any real cases you've personally encountered? I mean I sometimes have to assume my whole life as a chinese person must be in a bubble. At least in my region, what so true. That's just my 2 cents.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/01/china-families-interpol-...
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/this-activist-says-she-i...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxdv7/chinese-police-are-vi...
https://www.propublica.org/article/even-on-us-campuses-china...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/14/dissidents-in-...
https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-how-china-targets-di...
https://www.ucanews.com/news/hk-police-question-family-membe...
https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-dissident-s-family-detaine...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66337328
https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/countering-chinas-globa...
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/student-associations-...
https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/mongolia-involuntary-ret...
Can you personally verify all reports about anything?
> Will anyone research in chinese resources?
What "chinese resources"? We are talking about unlawful behavior by the Chinese authorities. They are obviously not providing any records about it, and China has no free press to investigate it.
> I'm sure some of the events are true but what are the incident rate / false positive or negatives.
Just a minute of googling for publicly reported cases surfaces tens of them in recent years. Given the obvious risks of retaliation which come with public disclosure, it would be very surprising if these cases were not just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of that iceberg would be your "negatives". The complete opaqueness of China's judicial system makes it impossible to quantify them. So what? Does that somehow diminish the relevance large number of cases which we do know about?
By "false positive", I guess you mean somebody choosing to incur the risks of going public (to themselves and to their relatives back home) just in order to tell a made-up story which will gain them neither money nor fame nor any other advantage. Can you come up with a single plausible reason why anyone would want to do that?
> In my region I think the probability is extremely low.
Based on what, other than having never been personally subject to it?
When I tried to follow a lot of news pieces like those above the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence, and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press. So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation. And it's guaranteed that no journalism will be covering the other side of the coin since there is no interest or financial value.
So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty. It seems wildly exaggerated.
Nobody claimed it does. I explicitly said "tip of the iceberg". For future reference, what you're using here is called a straw man argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China?
If you are in China, you will not hear anything about it from the authorities (who are acting unlawfully), from the media (which are not free) or even online (unless you go out of your way to get around the Great Firewall and access foreign news). The only way you will hear about any of this is if you, your family or close friends are subject to it. And only close relatives of a publicly known dissident are likely to be targeted. Do you know any such person? If not, there is no reason at all to expect to have ever heard about such things in China.
Outside of China, on the other hand, dissidents are free to speak out, the press is free to report what they say, and they are harder for Chinese authorities to silence. Harassing their families back home is then an obvious way to put pressure on them when personal intimidation doesn't suffice.
And that's why you are far more likely to hear about this outside of China than inside of it.
> It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press).
Are you seriously suggesting that these stories are made up by the press? That would work in China, where the media are all under control of the CCP, but not in the West. If the Wall Street Journal made up a story, the Washington Post would have a field tearing it to pieces; if the New York Times slipped, Fox News would be at its throat. And so on.
> the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence
"The chances"? Did you actually look at any of it?
> and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press
Do you have any concrete example of such a "debunking"? Or do you simply mean denial?
> So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation.
In other words, you are close friends with members of the Chinese police and/or judiciary, which is entirely controlled by the CCP, and you don't know any dissidents. Your views are thus entirely predictable.
> So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty
That's not what I responded to; I provided examples of Chinese police harassing the families of dissidents (see "straw man" above).
But if you insist, the discussion about China's national security law centers on Article 7, i.e. the part which says
All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t...
That certainly seems to imply that Chinese citizens and organizations must hand over any information they may have on request from China's intelligence agencies, and was a strong argument for excluding Chinese equipment providers from information infrastructure, as seen e.g. here
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...
First of all my friends are individuals and lively human beings, they express their own opinion freely to me at least, it's independent of the political structure, being reduced to 'the controlled members' is a little insulting to their intellectual capcity. What I wish is to contribute is my real life knowledge, not links on the internet(not that I deny all their authenticity).
Once again, if you haven't read what I replied, the original chinese text or the english translation never instruct citizen to spy. You also said 'imply'. If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
The translation by China Law Translate [1] of the Chinese text [2] is in agreement with those provided by Google Translate [3], DeepL Translate [4], and Bing Translator [5]. The only differences are trivial: "intelligence efforts" for some (CLT, Bing) vs "intelligence work" for others (Google, DeepL), capitalization of "State" versus plain "state".
Let's go with CLT and quote the whole thing:
Article 7: All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.
The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.
What does that mean? Keeping in mind that the law was drafted by the Ministry of State Security [6] ("the principal civilian intelligence, security and secret police agency of the People's Republic of China"), let's see how Wikipedia describes that kind of "efforts" or "work" [7]:
An intelligence agency is a government agency responsible for the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information in support of law enforcement, national security, military, public safety, and foreign policy objectives.
Means of information gathering are both overt and covert and may include espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources. The assembly and propagation of this information is known as intelligence analysis or intelligence assessment.
Do you see the word "spy" anywhere in that text? It's only used once on the entire page, in the title of an external link to a popular article about the 17 intelligence agencies which the US sees fit to run. Nobody serious says "spy". But everybody knows what "intelligence work" means.
So, what Article 7 says is that any Chinese citizen or organization must "support, assist, and cooperate" with China's intelligence agencies, which are in the business of collecting, analyzing and exploiting information. And just in case there's some doubt about where that work can be carried out, Article 10 clarifies that "national intelligence work institutions are to use the necessary means, tactics, and channels to carry out intelligence efforts, domestically and abroad".
> You also said 'imply'.
Yes. What's wrong with "imply"?
> If you don't work in law or judiciary in China I think my friends opinion on the matter weighs more.
I have no problem believing that your CCP friends are more knowledgeable about the internal workings of China's police and judiciary than I or just about any external observer; the CCP is intentionally opaque. For the exact same reason, I have an effectively insurmountable problem believing that they can be entirely open with you (assuming that you are not part of the same context) or that you could be entirely open about governance issues in a public forum such as this.
If you are really unwise I suppose you could ask them what's going on with Peng Lifa [8] and his family [9], considering the recent anniversary. (To be clear: I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't post in public about it if I were you.)
[1] https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-l...
[2] https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E...
[3] dumb1224 ↗ It's clear that you interpret the Chinese judiciary system as less transparent and fair than the democratic western counterparts. Yet you analyse and interpret laws in the same fashion as a functioning law system. By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. So analysing the text would make no sense. China doesn't have a Common Law system and almost certainly the law is exercised differently in different regions. I am simply adding my interpretation of how they are perceived in my limited circle. T-A ↗ > By the same logic I wonder why would you believe anything written in law in a chinese context. dumb1224 ↗ OK I wanted to pass for valuing both of our time until I read the links... T-A ↗ > What a blog of pseudo social/political science is that dumb1224 ↗ I have to apologies it must be my commenting that you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog on Amnesty International website. I don't what's it to do with Amnesty Inter but my point being it is a stretch to conceptualise '法家' relating the so called 'Rule by law'. Obviously I didn't study law or philosophy but unless you're an expert in the area I doubt that it is an established main stream theory. Just because it's published by Harvard or Cambridge press isn't necessarily a guarantee of high quality research or unbiased reporting. T-A ↗ > you keep missing my point. I was referring to the writting in that blog dumb1224 ↗ OK I won't say anything more about 'rule by law' since you couldn't get my point. My apologies for my poor commenting in English T-A ↗ P.S. I missed this part: dumb1224 ↗ No need to nitpick, of course I know what's the procedure to join the party. T-A ↗ > Well it's still quite extraordinary to see people on HN to remind my how the process is, as if my life in China was a faded dream. dumb1224 ↗ Well I don't know, I hope people on HN are intellegent enough and their sceptical nature should prevent them from doing exactly that. Still I think it's nitpicking to attack on an analogy (which is a bit 'straw man-ish') which I admit is exaggerated.
It's also interesting you referring my 'CCP friends'. As if it's a category of people or an attribute. Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member (and certainly if taking office).
Thirdly there are countless protests going on everyday. That's the reason I'm adding my insights as most 'chinese resources' are on social media, transient messages and posts, almost never get covered in the mainstream median. No one denies their existence. But like any movement, there are good and bad sides. What you can reach easily is very likely the end of long pipeline of biased selection. I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary).
Besides it'll be very unlikely that our local judge would know anything about a high profile case like LiFa Peng (would a local officer know a FBI investigation?). These are only visible in the west because they have been escalated to the extreme. Most protests are actually followed up a lot on social media, with the biggest noticable change perhaps being COVID restriction lifted.
China is commonly regarded as a "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") jurisdiction [1]. That doesn't mean that the law is irrelevant; it means that the law is applied if and when it suits the CCP to do so.
So if you want to know which powers the CCP is interested in wielding (like the ability to order any Chinese citizen or organization anywhere in the world to assist "intelligence efforts"), you should definitely read the law.
> Virtually everyone born in a city (city HuKou) would be highly likely a party member
Hardly. As of December 31, 2022, total membership of the Communist Party of China was 98.041 million (taken straight from the "Intra-Party Statistical Bulletin of the Communist Party of China" [2]). More than 99 million people live in the top five cities alone - and there are about a hundred more counting at least one million inhabitants each [3].
> (and certainly if taking office)
That I certainly believe.
> I appreciate your concern of publishing any information regarding recent controversial events. It's common belief for population that only receive biased reporting(again I never say what I read must be true, quite the contrary).
You may want to have a look at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CQBeBpP2-A45lw-zr6mn...
(introduced to us poor misguided receivers of "biased reporting" in [4]).
[1] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/rule-law-%3...
[2] http://www.qstheory.cn/yaowen/2023-06/30/c_1129725174.htm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_pop...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/china-online-cen...
[1] What a blog of pseudo social/political science is that, I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research. For reference there's always the common complaint of injustice in China attributing to 'Rule by man' [https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45293/] instead of rule of law. The legalist (法家) school of thoughts have nothing to do with it (well it was the school to make small weak country in terms of man power to be more efficient in agriculture and economy among other warring states but still doesn't fit).
If you read the actual constitution it mandates the democratic dictation against the enemy of the 'proletariat' (i.e public). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democratic_dictator...] So it is unbelievably consistently 'lawful'. I wouldn't want anyone in the world to read chinese law but please bring logical and well researched papers I'll be very interested to read.
The list of wrongly accused is from 2013 but majority is from 2019-now. There are 374 resulted in jail sentence (with some suspended). No one is doubting it is bad and my uncle had been jailed in the 90s wrongly over his superiors corruption so you can tell the prevalence back then. Another big factor is that in recent years due to quick response to reports, more cases are being reported to authorities [https://www.12377.cn/]. How updated is that list I can't know. Is the equivalent incident rate 1000 times lower in the US, or even zero? I haven't checked.
Party member numbers: I meant anyone with at least 3rd tier city level HuKou (which is the insanely backward ancient land-born-based rights for local resources). Use my hometown as an example, while the whole population is 3,4 million (4 counties in one city). The 'urban' HuKou is only 540,000 Using googled stats https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_22126669 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270163/age-distribution-... there are fewer people if you account for people aged between 20 and 60 (usually you would need to go through the previous prep youth group stage). The membership is as easy as joining a local gym. All my older family members are in party despite that they do nothing related to the government. Basically I'm saying party and population in 3rd city level HuKou holder are one.
Lastly I apologies if my commenting in English is so terrible that what I meant by 'bias' is confusing you. These might all be true but funneling one-sided or eye-catching stories only is the definition of biased reporting for me. Yes we don't have US/UK style press but it doesn't mean they don't get covered.
That would be the UK chapter of Amnesty International. Not familiar?
> I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research
Is Stanford good enough for you?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#RuleLawRuleL...
Or Harvard?
https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/rule-by-law-or-rule-of-...
Maybe Cambridge?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rule-by-law/64D05AB3BEA...
Or just google it, it's a well known concept.
> If you read the actual constitution it mandates
Lots of nice things, sure. So did the Soviet Union's constitution (I still have a copy of that one somewhere). But then there is the little detail of whether the words are actually applied in practice.
Here's what happened when a Chinese law professor had the audacity to suggest that the Party should actually abide by the constitution:
https://www.npr.org/2013/09/18/219671719/chinas-debate-must-...
Old article, you say? Well then, here's what somebody else had to say about in 2019:
https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/xi-china-must-never-adopt-co...
You may want to take note, he really doesn't like loose talk about constitutionalism in China.
> The list of wrongly accused is from 2013 but majority is from 2019-now
It's a live spreadsheet started in 2013. New cases are added as they occur. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I agree that faster reporting and the spreadsheet itself becoming more widely known over time could have contributed to the rising trend.
I can easily find this book from Oxford which I consider garbage what typically we find in party education courses. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-and-economics-wi...
>It's a live spreadsheet started in 2013. I mean if you regard it a lawless society in China then it's actually rather impressive, extrapolate by a factor of 1000 (if you want to estimate the 'iceberg') will give you 300,000 cases (assuming all true positives) out 1.4 billion over the course of 10 years. Again please don't twist my meaning.
Ah, so your point wasn't
> I've never heard of 'Rule by law' and very much doubt it's genuine valid research
? Well then simply ignore the words "rule by law" and go read Xi Jinping's article. Or is he too insufficiently qualified to opine on China's governance?
> The membership is as easy as joining a local gym.
Your local gyms must be very different from any I've ever seen. Here's how the South Chine Morning Post described the process in 2021 [1]:
Joining the party is usually an arduous process that can take two to three years.
Potential members must apply to their local party organisations, initiating a multi-year process with more than 20 steps to determine their qualification, including submitting a formal application, meeting with the local party organisers and attending party study sessions.
Candidates also need a party member to act as a guide and mentor, who they often find through party organisations at their work and schools.
After about a year of study, applicants need to pass written tests. They must also pass background checks – those with criminal records or whose family members have such records may fail these.
If they pass all of these steps, applicants still have to go through a probation period of at least a year before the party branch decides whether to admit them.
Which makes sense. Why else would only 0.7% of all Chinese be members?
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3134071/why...
>Potential members must apply to their local party organisations, initiating a multi-year process with more than 20 steps
All of these happen in your formal education (middle school to college, include junior club as well if you want to count in elementary school) anyway. You won't miss any of that anyway unless you are in a rural area with little resources.
Well it's still quite extraordinary to see people on HN to remind my how the process is, as if my life in China was a faded dream. If HN always prefer internet material than say personal experience then here are the two major stages:
https://tw.lzre.edu.cn/info/1019/1139.htm
http://www.yydj.gov.cn/11270/11273/content_428390.html
I exaggerated a bit but my point was since all of these are integral to your school journey you just need to decide to join or not.
No, you get "reminded" because you seem to "forget" a lot when you write about conditions in China. If somebody with little knowledge of China sees a Chinese person claiming that joining the party is just like joining a local gym, then shockingly, that person may actually believe it. I know, incredible, right?
>No, you get "reminded" because you seem to "forget" a lot when you write about conditions in China.
This is a bit strange. Are you accusing me lying about what I experienced? I repeatedly said that what I want to add is my personal experience. What you feel about the society is important. People feel they can't afford housing even when they have good income on paper. One can live in China without experiencing any of problems you mentioned. Another person might differ. What exactly did I 'forget' in my own life?
Yes, you are in a bubble if you rely on Chinese news. These kind of news is illegal to report in China and immediately censored.
> Any real cases you've personally encountered
What sort of an argument is this? I've never encountered a terrorist or been involved in a terrorist incident. Does this mean terrorists don't exist?
Especially not the DUV machines.
EUV is a different matter. The design that ASML uses relies on absolutely crazy optics and masks that aren't just stupidly difficult to manufacture but maintain/repair throughput use.
I don't expect China to copy their EUV design, more likely they would develop something homegrown. Largely this comes down to the light source which is actually designed/built in San Diego, not the Netherlands. It's a very complex and finicky beast that I don't think would appeal to Chinese sensibilities. More likely I expect them to come up with a cyclotron design or similar which can more easily reach higher power output (critical for lithography) but requires more centralized infrastructure (not a problem for China, but a problem for private companies).
Would be damn cool if they do, guess we'll just have to wait and find out.
For the record, I'm not Chinese, nor USAn, nor Dutch, just an outside observer to this shit show.
The Netherlands is a small country in Europe that has always had to deal with big barbarian nations. We manage. Mostly by playing them against eachother lol. A little slice of peaceful civilization while the rest of the world goes nuts. That's our foreign policy nowadays.
From Bloomberg:
"China accounted for 46% of ASML's sales in the third quarter, compared to 24% in the previous quarter and 8% in January to March."
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/emergency-pod-export-c...
[1] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9jaGluYWVjb250YWx...
Any idea on how many that represents? They don't produce like thousands per year, correct?
Sales in lithography units:
China has no access to EUV; no sales breakdown by model.Can they really order that much within months?
I have a Huawei E6878-870 5G router which is a great device, but getting a bit long in the tooth (no eSIM support, doesn’t support the newer 5G bands, no WiFi 6, etc). I’ve tried some competitor’s devices like the ZTE MU5001, but they’re a bit plonky by comparison. Much prefer the Huawei UI and physical design, as well as seemingly better antennas.
I think they got a bit discouraged by all the sanctions against them and slowed down their device releases in recent years, but sounds like they’re overcoming that now. Would love to see some updated Huawei 5G routers soon!
The large Chinese purchase of DUV machines is a stop gap until local alternatives are ready. Likely fairly soon.
Otherwise Huawei and friends would bide for more time and focus on non-visible but critical products and not a mass produced phone.
Other Chinese companies may have.
I think Tencent and ByteDance are quite shocked that they now are banned from buying GPUs at Nvdia and are forced to buy them at Huawei.
The Chinese don't seem that bothered by them, it enhances their national security posture to have all such chips developed and fabricated locally. They now seem to value that over the near term economic consequences of being a few generations behind for a little bit.
Fact of the matter is China has access to everything it needs to become ridiculously good at chip fabs. Money, talent pool and more critically motivation/government support.