Trafficking in Assertions on Data in China Lacks Explanatory Power

IF 1.3
Paul Triolo
{"title":"Trafficking in Assertions on Data in China Lacks Explanatory Power","authors":"Paul Triolo","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T he issue of China and data, including Chinese government access to data, has become one of the most discussed topics in U.S.-China relations. News on this issue seems to emerge on a daily basis—whether it is the Montana governor banning TikTok, claims that Chinese drones are sending data back to Beijing, or headlines claiming that China is blocking outbound data flows due to national security concerns. In her new book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas offers a sweeping view of the data landscape and its nexus with China, from TikTok to WeChat to the Digital Silk Road. There is much to say about the evolution of China’s data governance, which has progressed substantially since its Cybersecurity Law was enacted in 2016 and implemented in 2017, as well as about successful Chinese apps such as TikTok and WeChat. While well-researched in places, the book, like many articles on China and data, makes initial assumptions, and then builds theories of risks on top of a largely unexamined set of theses about the Chinese government, its ability and intention regarding data handling, and how it interacts with private-sector companies that dominate the data space in China. Kokas seems to accept, somewhat uncritically, that the Chinese government demands and can access all data collected and processed by Chinese technology platforms. The book also argues that the Chinese government seeks to put together bits of information from different Chinese and Western sources under the concept of “mosaic theory,” which holds that such data points, when taken together, present risks to individuals or companies (see p. 147). Both of these approaches assume that China has grand designs to control all data and leverage it for nefarious ends. But on closer examination, the validity of building further constructs upon these assumptions looks quite dubious. The standard assessment of China’s national security and intelligence laws (including the Cybersecurity Law) as mandating companies to turn over data to the government is inaccurate on several levels (see p. 120).","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

T he issue of China and data, including Chinese government access to data, has become one of the most discussed topics in U.S.-China relations. News on this issue seems to emerge on a daily basis—whether it is the Montana governor banning TikTok, claims that Chinese drones are sending data back to Beijing, or headlines claiming that China is blocking outbound data flows due to national security concerns. In her new book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas offers a sweeping view of the data landscape and its nexus with China, from TikTok to WeChat to the Digital Silk Road. There is much to say about the evolution of China’s data governance, which has progressed substantially since its Cybersecurity Law was enacted in 2016 and implemented in 2017, as well as about successful Chinese apps such as TikTok and WeChat. While well-researched in places, the book, like many articles on China and data, makes initial assumptions, and then builds theories of risks on top of a largely unexamined set of theses about the Chinese government, its ability and intention regarding data handling, and how it interacts with private-sector companies that dominate the data space in China. Kokas seems to accept, somewhat uncritically, that the Chinese government demands and can access all data collected and processed by Chinese technology platforms. The book also argues that the Chinese government seeks to put together bits of information from different Chinese and Western sources under the concept of “mosaic theory,” which holds that such data points, when taken together, present risks to individuals or companies (see p. 147). Both of these approaches assume that China has grand designs to control all data and leverage it for nefarious ends. But on closer examination, the validity of building further constructs upon these assumptions looks quite dubious. The standard assessment of China’s national security and intelligence laws (including the Cybersecurity Law) as mandating companies to turn over data to the government is inaccurate on several levels (see p. 120).
中国贩卖数据缺乏解释力
中国和数据问题,包括中国政府获取数据的途径,已成为美中关系中讨论最多的话题之一。关于这个问题的新闻似乎每天都在出现——无论是蒙大拿州州长禁止TikTok,声称中国无人机正在向北京发送数据,还是声称中国出于国家安全考虑正在阻止出境数据流的头条新闻。在她的新书《贩卖数据:中国如何赢得数字主权之战》中,安妮·科卡斯(Aynne Kokas)全面介绍了数据格局及其与中国的关系,从TikTok到b微信再到数字丝绸之路。自2016年颁布《网络安全法》并于2017年实施以来,中国数据治理的演变取得了重大进展,TikTok和b微信等成功的中国应用程序也有很多话可说。虽然在一些地方进行了充分的研究,但与许多关于中国和数据的文章一样,这本书做出了初步的假设,然后在一套基本上未经检验的论文的基础上建立了风险理论,这些论文涉及中国政府、其处理数据的能力和意图,以及它如何与主导中国数据空间的私营企业互动。Kokas似乎不加批判地接受了中国政府要求并可以访问中国技术平台收集和处理的所有数据。该书还认为,中国政府试图在“马赛克理论”的概念下,将来自不同中国和西方来源的信息拼凑在一起,该理论认为,当这些数据点放在一起时,会给个人或公司带来风险(见第147页)。这两种方法都假设中国有宏伟的计划来控制所有数据,并利用这些数据达到邪恶的目的。但经过更仔细的检查,在这些假设的基础上建立进一步结构的有效性看起来相当可疑。对中国国家安全和情报法(包括《网络安全法》)强制要求公司向政府提交数据的标准评估在几个层面上是不准确的(见第120页)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asia Policy
Asia Policy Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Asia Policy is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal presenting policy-relevant academic research on the Asia-Pacific that draws clear and concise conclusions useful to today’s policymakers.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信