fbpx

Search for: china

Orban Is Running Out of Other People’s Money

There once was a time when foreign investors regarded Hungary as the tax haven of the European Union. Boasting a low corporate tax rate, a new flat tax, and most importantly for many investors massive subsidies from the Hungarian government to “create jobs,” this was Hungary’s claim to fame. But this is no badge of honor. The Hungarian government has been providing all this at the expense of EU taxpayers. In the past decade, Hungary became the second-biggest net beneficiary of EU funds, with most of those funds landing in the pockets of oligarchs and well-connected cronies.

Recently, the unexpected happened, as the EU opted to withhold funds so long as specific criteria around the rule of laware being violated. The vote passed just before Christmas of 2022, with the European Commission effectively freezing €22 billion in cohesion funds that Hungary was supposed to receive. At issue is Hungary’s increasing lack of judicial independence and academic freedom, alongside the runaway corruption that has come to define the Orban government.

In other words, the other EU members had had enough of Hungary mishandling their cash. Margaret Thatcher said it best when she noted that governments eventually “run out of other people’s money.” This is the textbook example we see now in the case of Viktor Orban’s regime, which thought it could play the “maverick” in the EU and still get away with systemic graft. No longer.

So what does the strongman of Central Europe do in response? Orban is looking for new partners outside the EU (China and the Gulf countries) to finance his gig and has begun taxing the Hungarian people and industry like never before.

Just last week, Orban used his power to rule by decree, passing several laws overnight. As the country muddles through the highest inflation rate in the European Union in addition to soaring food prices, the government is looking for new ways to raise revenue. It seems it’s settled on going after people’s savings by levying an additional 13% tax—called a “social contribution”—atop interest gains on Hungarians’ investments. Taken together with a 15% income tax previously in place, the overall tax rate on investments sits at a ghastly 28%. Most forms of savings for ordinary people have been affected. The government now encourages citizens to buy state bonds that promise a good return. Toward that end, the state is now forcing banks to inform consumers how much they would lose if they chose a bank investment over state bonds.

As a result, bizarre as it may seem, Hungarians are discouraged from saving money at a time when there is too much of it circulating in the economy.

The budget must be in terrible shape, and the Hungarian government desperately needs new means of taxing corporations. For example, retailers that have already been hard hit by the government’s price caps have also been burdened by an added revenue tax. The result is in plain sight: frighteningly high food prices, shortages, and many shops closing down permanently.

The pharmaceutical sector, which is already suffering due to the punitive nature of Orban’s taxes, has been dealt yet another blow. Their industry must now pay more tax after the cost of some medicine has increased by up to 40%. The unexpected move is forcing pharmaceutical companies to shift their strategy around the availability of certain products. Due to the fact that the Hungarian market is relatively small, facing such a significant rise in taxes could nudge pharma companies toward withdrawing from the country altogether, suspending their operations, and halting the sale of certain products. Consider how in California, U.S. insurance providers looked at the rising cost of doing business, both environmental and regulatory, and simply opted to pull out. This is the reality of how markets work, whether populists like it or not.

The result is that Hungarian consumers will suffer shortages in their pharmacies. The more dire consequences can only be known once it is too late.

If you’re wondering how the Hungarian government gets away with this chicanery in the name of deficit reduction, the answer is simple: the Orban government has been using its propaganda machinery very efficiently to persuade the public that these measures are necessary to counteract financial blackmail from Brussels. The regime asserts that the EU is withholding funds to which Hungary is entitled and that there are “greedy” sectors of big business that should contribute more.

What of the fact that these actions bear no evidence of helping to lower record-high inflation and food prices, or that they will not ease supply shortages? The past decade has seen Hungarian government propaganda become highly efficient in persuading its people. Enormous amounts of money have been spent to convince the people that all the ills Hungary faces are caused by the West, George Soros, banks, and multinational companies. The government goes so far as to claim that the chief rival of the nation is Brussels. The very same people who once suffered under Soviet rule now praise the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi’s China while reaping the benefits of NATO and EU membership. Propaganda is working, and dissent within Hungary’s legislature is increasingly difficult to find. Facts have long lost their meaning in a country where there is always someone else to blame.

Originally published here

The European Union’s new chemical regulations leave the bloc vulnerable to Chinese domination

The European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) risks creating new problems for itself by moving from a risk to a hazard-based assessment of chemicals.

Sometimes, eliminating one set of problems only creates more dangers in their stead. The European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) is about to do just that by moving from a risk to a hazard-based assessment of chemicals. Though seemingly just a change in words, the decision means regulators can label a substance as dangerous for its properties based on the material’s hypothetical characteristics rather than real-world exposure to harm. Simply put, policymakers will be able to introduce severe warning labels or prevent a product from entering the market if just one of its molecules could be dangerous based on hypothetical assessments under controlled laboratory setups. The ECHA’s new regulations threaten to undermine the European chemical market while making the Union progressively dependent on China for raw resources.

The case of essential oils encapsulates the problem. Essential oils are water or steam-based extracts integral to anything from perfumes and cosmetics to shampoos and natural insect repellents. They are vital components for the emergent market in clean beauty, with nine hundred ninety-two mixtures (including household names such as lavender, rose, and citronella) giving makeup its cleansing properties and deodorants their unique scent. When highly concentrated in doses containing 10% or higher quantities of emulsion, citronella, sage, and cinnamon also provide one to four hours of protection from mosquito and tick bites. And, unlike traditional DEET or picaridin sprays, they remain harmless to bees and the environment.

Despite all these benefits, essential oils’ designation as complex natural substances will have to change with the introduction of hazard-based thinking. Rule-makers will label the mixtures as dangerous chemicals or ban them entirely under EU regulation 2021/1902. In either case, European consumers tend to avoid buying products with skulls and crossbones stamped on them.

It is no understatement to say that the consequences for the 3.53-billion-euro EU market would be dire. Once the ECHA’s new rules are fully adopted, current EU and world leaders in the supply of essential oils, like Bulgaria, France, and Italy, stand to lose. Bulgaria will no longer be the top producer of rose oil, wasting between 800kg and two tonnes of the material and 92 million euros worth of exports. Italy is single-handedly responsible for 95% of the world’s bergamot production and will lose 174 million euros. France is the third-largest exporter and the second-biggest producer of lavender, worth 458 million euros in exports that it would have to give up on. Moreover, smaller producers in each of these countries stand to lose the most as it would be too expensive for them to replace essential oils with other products (putting the 4500 family businesses behind Italian bergamot in danger).

The story does not stop there. The ECHA’s decision will allow China to dominate the essential oils market with impunity. Chinese lavender production is already at an all-time high, with 40 tonnes harvested yearly, ten of which are reserved for exports. The contraction of the European market will allow China to step in and become the world’s substitute for essential oils, overcoming its previously estimated growth in the sector of 10.8% over the next eight years. The news would be welcome under ideal economic circumstances of free trade and open, voluntary specialization within a global market; however, in our world, the Chinese state controls Xinjiang Province’s lavender reserves. As such, the Chinese Communist Party could cut access to raw materials to make liberal democracies surrender. Far from being safer, consumers are left more exposed to geopolitical blackmail by authoritarian regimes.

Policymakers should urge the ECHA to reverse its hazard-based reasoning in favor of risk-oriented thinking. Regulators should emphasize safe levels of intended use, which, in the case of essential oils, means allowing the European market to thrive (stepping in only to prevent force and pseudo-scientific fraud).  In so doing, the European Union can benefit from diversifying its essential oil sources, thus protecting consumers from the vagaries of great power politics.

Originally published here

The devil’s bargain on eliminating PFAS

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been headlining newspapers across the nation as of late. States like Maine have pushed rules and regulations to limit the presence of PFAS in consumer products; the EPA recommended PFAS water limits that are near zero, and class action lawsuits have embroiled producers.

PFAS, a diverse group of man-made chemicals used in everything from microchip production to pharmaceuticals and medical implants, are under the gun, to put it mildly. In fact, St. Paul-based 3M, in response to the mounting pressure, announced in December that it would be seeking to leave the market altogether with hopes of no longer producing any PFAS at all by 2025.

Critics of the current regulatory approach to PFAS have warned that eliminating the production of PFAS in the U.S. entirely would create huge supply chain disruptions for everyday consumer goods, and create a laundry list of externalities. In fact, it would appear that U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum sees the writing on the wall and the disaster that will unfold if the U.S. produces no PFAS whatsoever. The Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota’s Fourth District explained that 3M leaving the market presents a national security risk, primarily because of how vital PFAS is for chip production. Congress, and the Biden administration, allocated $53 billion to increase chip production in the U.S., with the hopes of ending U.S. reliance on China for chips.

This is where the PFAS debate gets geopolitical. McCollum went so far as to say that the Biden administration could mandate that 3M continue to produce PFAS, and use the Defense Production Act, which requires private companies to prioritize the government’s needs.

So on one hand, we have government agencies significantly limiting PFAS in the U.S., while at the same time Congress may counter those efforts to require PFAS to continue to be produced domestically. It would appear that legislators are starting to realize that phasing out PFAS production in the U.S. doesn’t eliminate the demand for PFAS along the supply chain, which means that microchip producers, for example, will have to import these chemicals to avoid a production shortage. This is no easy feat, given that in 2019, the last time production data was available, the U.S. domestically produced 625 million pounds of PFAS, with only 54 million pounds being imported. A 571 million pound shortfall is a significant sum.

And where would U.S. chip manufacturers import PFAS from if U.S. production ceased? Ironically, U.S. chip producers would have to import the bulk of that shortfall from China, which completely undermines the purpose of reshoring chip production in the U.S. We know that this is likely what will happen because it already happened in Europe when 3M’s Belgium plant was temporarily shut down. Major Korean chip producers like Samsung and SK Hynix purchased PFAS from Chinese suppliers to avoid production shortages.

It certainly makes great sense to try to decouple from China in regards to chips, especially with increased tensions over Taiwan’s autonomy and Biden’s commitment to militarily defend Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China does invade. That is something that is becoming increasingly more likely with China’s President Xi Jinping instructing China’s military to be prepared for an invasion by 2027.

If U.S. chip producers end up having to import PFAS to produce chips, the U.S. will be setting the table for a scenario eerily similar to Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. If, or when, China invades Taiwan, the U.S. would be in an active armed conflict with a country who is now the primary supplier of vital inputs for microchips. In that scenario, those imports likely end, either by decision from China, or sanctions against China, grinding the supply chain to a halt.

And the cost of this would be astronomical. For example, chip shortages cost the U.S. economy $240 billion in 2021. The shortage heavily affected the auto industry, costing manufacturers $210 billion in revenue as cars sat in lots waiting for chips to be installed. A true national chip shortage, not just with cars but with all products reliant on chips, would be so costly that it is difficult to actually forecast.

At the end of the day, PFAS policy needs to encompass the full view on costs and benefits, taking into account the emerging geopolitical discussion. There has to be a path forward that allows for responsible production, ensuring clean drinking water, while avoiding a wholesale chip shortage and the chaos that would ensue.

Originally published here

Banning TikTok is Just the Beginning

The hype around banning TikTok on official government devices shows us that liberal democracies are beginning to take Chinese influence seriously, and the appeasing economic policies of the last two decades are soon to be a thing of the past. Are we late to wake up? Time will tell.

The debate regarding TikTok concerns something other than the app’s quality or what people use it for. It is about how China collects data to achieve an even larger scale. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is taking the AI competition seriously. To surpass its competitors, it needs a considerable quantity of data, through which the aggregate of useful information can help make its artificial intelligence more and more successful. One would argue that China has the advantage of having the largest population on Earth, so having a suitable aggregate at home is a plus. It is also clear that government-sponsored mass surveillance has been happening in China for a while. With the help of CCTVs, apps, different consumer tech devices, biometric mapping of citizens, and Internet surveillance, the communist country constantly monitors its citizens. Although the results are probably auspicious, China needs even more data about foreigners to perfect its AI project.

On the other hand, having an app on devices with sensitive information also going through can be dangerous for lawmakers. The apparent cybersecurity threat has forced EU lawmakers to enact new
legislation to ban TikTok
on government-issued devices. Similarly, sensitive information can be tracked from the websites of organizations, schools, companies, and basically anything. American researchers showed many companies embed TikTok trackers called pixels on their sites. They studied many sites ending in .edu, .gov, and .org, only to find that most used these trackers without being aware of additional risks. It also entails that TikTok can track you even if you don’t use the app.

In the United States, the issue regarding TikTok was already raised by the Trump administration, but only at the end of 2022 did they finally come up with legislation to ban the app on government devices, plus many schools and states followed the example of the federal government.

Picking up on the American example of model legislation to regulate TikTok, the Consumer Choice Center launched a campaign in January to initiate similar rules and laws in the European Union. Raising awareness was imperative that the people understood the threat behind Chinese influence in Europe. Through different solutions, from a partial ban to complete divestiture of TikTok, the Consumer Choice Center has also looked at other types of Chinese economic influence and the diversity of Chinese tech that influences our everyday lives.

There is still much work to be done if Europeans want to avoid making the same mistake regarding tech dependence on China as they did in the case of Russian gas. Any energy, technology, or economic dependence will entail dire consequences for liberal democracies. As countries like Australia and the UK have already moved forward in restricting and banning other Chinese technologies, the European Union and the member states should consider taking further steps if they don’t want their citizens to be surveilled by a foreign nation.

The Great Danger of CBDCs

Kaleidoscopic Banknotes Collage

There have been numerous announcements of central banks starting to explore the idea of introducing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC).

From e-naira, a CBDC issued by the central bank of Nigeria, to the digital yuan in China to the European central bank exploring the idea of the digital euro. In fact, according to the Bank For International Settlements research, 90% out of 81 central banks surveyed have been in some shape or form investigating the idea of introducing a central bank digital currency.

According to the same survey, an increasing number of countries are adjusting the legal authority of central banks giving them provisions that allow for a launch of digital currencies.

These central banks argue that CBDCs will help with financial inclusion by providing more access to financial services for underbanked and unbanked, they would lead to a significant reduction in fraud and money laundering, and they would improve efficiency and ultimately allow for a better and more efficient monetary policy through more control over the money supply.

CBDCs are often thought of in terms of the government’s response to crypto, the way that central banks are trying to get with the times and digitize money. However, except for utilizing similar technologies, they are fundamentally different from Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies.

The most significant difference between CBDCs and Bitcoin lies in the level of centralization and control. While Bitcoin is a fully decentralized currency operating on a decentralized ledger that not one person or organization can control, CBDCs are issued and fully controlled by the central bank that controls its supply, issuances, and use.

Bitcoin was created as a decentralized alternative to traditional fiat currencies and as a response to the monetary policies of central banks creating uncertainty and being responsible for the devaluation of money with ripple effects throughout the economy. CBDCs would equip governments with tools providing fast and easy total control over monetary policy to the extent of targeting businesses, organizations, and individuals. 

The level of control that a government would have over every transaction and the ability to apply transaction censorship over anyone would give leaders a level of control unprecedented in history, a tool that any totalitarian leader from a few decades ago could have only dreamed of. 

One could argue that most money already is digital, an endless collection of 0s and 1s. However, the crucial distinction is that no single database can track and oversee every transaction that exists. There are a number of laws and regulations in place that allow law enforcement to request access to records of interest where courts are required to give approval for such actions.

Forgoing these checks and balances currently in place and allowing one-click access to accounts of citizens would give not only an unprecedented power in terms of privacy violations but also an opportunity to monitor or deactivate undesirable accounts based on any perceived or real violation.

Taking away all of one’s ability to sustain themselves by locking their accounts is equivalent to jailing them. Giving officials the option to freeze or ban certain accounts without due process could seriously damage the principles of rule of law on which our society rests.

The potential for any elected or appointed officials to affect a citizen’s livelihood in such a way could lead to serious consequences, such as endangering the ability of citizens to use their right to free expression in fear of their lives being ruined in a single click. It is not hard to imagine many possible ways that any malicious actor could use this centralized power. Many other unintended consequences could be possible and some could create immense levels of social distrust.

Then there is privacy. Transactions made using CBDCs may be recorded on a public blockchain, making it possible for others to track and analyze financial data. Having citizens using a tool that could fundamentally affect their privacy on an unimaginable scale thus far in human history would be a grand violation of rights to privacy and would, without a doubt, lead to additional problems.

You thought your browsing history could be turned against you? Anyone having access to any monetary transaction you have made would definitely not be fun either and it is easy to imagine dozens of ways that bad actors could exploit access to that kind of information.

Another often overlooked potential consequence of introducing Central Bank Digital Currency is the digital monetary competition. If we see a rise in digital currencies issued by central banks, it is likely that they will enter a race with other country issued currencies as well as private or decentralized ones, such as Bitcoin. Having this sort of competition would potentially open up unknowing citizens to currency fluctuations which cannot be foreseen and create even larger instability with some national currencies. The ways this could affect purchasing power and lead to potential civil unrest is evident.

This is only a few ways that adoption of Central Bank Digital Currencies could affect life as we know it. It is easy to see how an extremely centralized, highly controlled and surveilled currency would be an end of many of the freedoms that our societies enjoy and shows why in contrast, Bitcoin, a highly decentralized, secure and censorship resistant currency is immensely important and represents one of the most potent tools humanity has today.

Aleksandar Kokotović is the crypto fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.

The debate on whether to ban Tiktok is not about free speech

The intellectual debate among classical liberals on the necessary or unnecessary limits of free speech has been going on for quite a while. It is mostly accepted that liberal democracies must be the guardians of free speech and help other countries achieve the same end. However, a new, 21st-century version of liberal democracy entails admitting that when one has authoritarian regimes to counter, one must have security measures to defend our democracies against totalitarian countries.

We at the Consumer Choice Center believe in free speech and tech innovation and in being free from surveillance from rogue regimes. Free trade with private companies is also vital to world trade. Still, when it comes to the Chinese communist regime owning a part of a company, it worries us to see that our liberal democracies may be harmed by the possibility of European consumers’ devices being spied on.

Obviously, I am referring to the popular social media platform TikTok here. Due to national security concerns, governments in North America are taking serious steps against the Chinese app. In the USA, it has been banned by the federal government for their employees on work-related devices, and also some universities have followed suit. Canadian authorities are equally considering a similar ban for the very same security reasons. Should the European Union do the same? If it intends to ensure the security and privacy of its citizens, liberal democracies in the EU cannot deny this new reality of the 21stcentury.

Read the full text here

Chinese Battery Plant Posing Security Concerns

Remember when at the end of 2021, Hungarian Ambassador to Beijing mentioned that Hungary is proud to serve as the entry point for Chinese companies to the European Union? Most people were already thinking of the establishment of a Fudan University campus in Budapest, the Belgrade-Budapest Railroad, the notorious respiratory ventilator deal during Covid, and even helping high-tech companies enter the EU market. However, the latest and most talked about investment is building a battery plant in the city of Debrecen by Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd (CATL). It is supposed to be a 8bn USD investment (plus the subsidies by the pro-Chinese Hungarian government), which is now one of the hottest topics in Hungary as many opposition parties and green organizations have been demonstrating publicly due to environmental concerns. Nevertheless, other worrisome issues should be mentioned regarding the plant.

According to Intelligence Online, the new plant serves the geopolitical interests of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Moreover, the investment is controlled by the CCP, and the Chinese and Hungarian foreign ministers make the most strategic decisions. It is no surprise that Hungary has shifted its trade focus from the west to the east in the past decade. Also, Prime Minister Orban, who is not only Putin’s biggest ally in the European Union, has praised the Chinese type of state capitalism in the past years. Besides these, there is an argument stating that China wants to reward Hungary for siding with it regarding Taiwan.

CATL perfectly fits in the line of TikTok, Huawei, Hikvision, Dahua, and others when it comes to conquering the European markets and using technologies and companies that directly serve the political interests of the communist party. It even looks like the Chinese government was racing with time to establish its key points in Europe before it was too late. And as we are experiencing now, the window of opportunity has been closing rapidly recently. Some EU countries have already got rid of the Huawei 5G network, the United States has introduced a ban on TikTok in federal institutions, and Canada is also moving in this direction. In the EU, some politicians have also voiced their concerns about Chinese economic expansion and a possible ban on TikTok due to human rights and security concerns. We at the Consumer Choice Center have also expressed our worry regarding excessive Chinese presence in Europe, and we have already called on EU lawmakers to consider a US-like ban on TikTok. Our standpoint is clear: as long as the CCP is involved in “private” business, they should not have anything to do with European trade. If there is a chance of sensitive data of EU citizens being handled by the communist party, EU leaders should opt for a zero-tolerance approach. Although many commentators and politicians offer attractive solutions, most would appease the Chinese. We uphold our argument that whenever security issues are concerned, a “forced divestiture of a company regulated and overseen by regulators in liberal democratic nations seems to be the most prudent measure.”

The best answer to TikTok is a forced divestiture 

As consumer advocates, we pride ourselves as standing for policies that promote policies fit for growth, lifestyle freedom, and tech innovation. 

In usual regulatory circumstances, that means protecting consumers’ platform and tech choices  from the zealous hands of regulators and government officials who would otherwise seek to shred basic Internet protections and freedom of speech, as well as break up innovative tech companies. Think Section 230, government jawboning, and consequences of deplatforming.

As such, the antitrust crusades by select politicians and agency heads in the United States and Europe are of primary concern for consumer choice. We have written extensively about this, and better ways forward. Many of these platforms make mistakes and severe errors on content moderation, often in response to regulatory concerns. But that does not invite trust-busting politicians and regulators to meddle with companies that consumers value.

In the background of each of these legislative battles and proposals, however, there is a special example found in the Chinese-owned firm TikTok, today one of the most popular social apps on the planet. 

RELATED: Forcing TikTok’s divestiture from the CCP is both reasonable and necessary

The Special Case of TikTok

Now owned by Bytedance, TikTok offers a similar user experience to Instagram Reels, Snapchat, or Twitter, but is supercharged by an algorithm that serves up short videos that entice users with constant content that autoloads and scrolls by. Many social phenomena, dances, and memes propagate via TikTok.

In terms of tech innovation and its proprietary algorithm, TikTok is a dime a dozen. There is a reason it is one of the most downloaded apps on mobile devices in virtually every market and language. 

Researchers have already revealed that China’s own domestic version of TikTok, Douyin, restricts content for younger users. Instead of dances and memes, Douyin features science experiments, educational material, and time limits for underage users. TikTok, on the other hand, seems to have a suped-up algorithm that has an ability to better attract, and hook, younger children.

What makes it special for consumer concern beyond the content, however, is its ownership, privacy policies, and  far-too-cozy relationship with the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the same party that oversees concentration camps of its Muslim minority and repeatedly quashes human rights across its territories.

It has already been revealed that European users of the TikTok can, and have, had their data accessed by company officials in Beijing. And the same goes for US users. Considering the ownership location and structure, there isn’t much that can be done about this.

Unlike tech companies in liberal democracies, Chinese firms require direct corporate oversight and governance by Chinese Communist Party officials – often military personnel. In the context of a construction company or domestic news publisher, this doesn’t seemingly put consumers in liberal democracies at risk. But a popular tech app downloaded on the phones of hundreds of millions of users? That is a different story.

How best to address TikTok in a way that upholds liberal democratic values

Among liberal democracies, there are a myriad of opinions about how to approach the TikTok beast.

US FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr wants a total ban, much in line with Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposed ban in the U.S. Senate and U.S. Rep. Ken Buck’s similar ban in the House. But there are other ways that would be more in line with liberal democratic values.

One solution we would propose, much in line with the last US administration’s stance, would be a forced divestiture to a U.S.-based entity on national security grounds. This would mean a sale of US assets (or assets in liberal democracies) to an entity based in those countries that would be completely independent of any CCP influence.

In 2019-2020, when President Donald Trump floated this idea, a proposed buyer of TikTok’s U.S. assets would have been Microsoft, and later Oracle. But the deal fell through.

But this solution is not unique.

We have already seen such actions play out with vital companies in the healthcare space, including PatientsLikeMe, which uses sensitive medical data and real-time data to connect patients about their conditions and proposed treatments. 

When the firm was flooded with investments from Chinese partners, the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ruled that a forced divestiture would have to take place. The same has been applied to a Chinese ownership stake in Holu Hou Energy, a U.S.-subsidiary energy storage company.

In vital matters of energy and popular consumer technology controlled by elements of the Chinese Communist Party, a forced divestiture to a company regulated and overseen by regulators in liberal democratic nations seems to be the most prudent measure.

This has not yet been attempted for a wholly-owned foreign entity active in the US, but we can see why the same concerns apply.

An outright ban or restriction of an app would not pass constitutional muster in the US, and would have chilling effects for future innovation that would reverberate beyond consumer technology.

This is a controversial topic, and one that will require nuanced solutions. Whatever the outcome, we hope consumers will be better off, and that liberal democracies can agree on a common solution that continues to uphold our liberties and choices as consumers.

Yaël Ossowski is the deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Time for the EU to Counter TikTok

The free world is growing increasingly suspicious about the popular Chinese social media platform TikTok. In only the latest example, Canadian authorities are warning its citizens about the dangers of using the app for both their privacy and security.

Although TikTok denies sharing sensitive information about users with the Chinese government, the head of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) Canadian Centre for Cyber Security still cautions users about the security of personal and contact information they share with the app.

Canada might be following in the footsteps of the United States, where, due to national security concerns, the usage of the Chinese app has been banned by the federal government for their employees on work-related devices. Moreover, several US states and public universities have followed the same path.

These actions, which mirror nuanced policy measures that aim to hold the app accountable while ensuring no sensitive devices download the app, are a new reality for liberal democracies aiming to ensure the security and privacy of its citizens and state employees. 

The Consumer Choice Center has already voiced concerns about the app’s growing number of vulnerable users in the European Union, and the influence of the CCP. Looking at the involvement of the Chinese Communist Party in the tech giant and its record of mass surveillance and human rights violations, lawmakers in the European Union should also start considering how to deal with TikTok. Although the parent company of the app has denied the abuse of individual data, it is more than worrying to experience how users’ personal information is being harvested and can be used once in the wrong hands.

There are more reasons to be concerned than just the dance videos and contact information uploaded to the popular sharing app. The Chinese government has invested heavily in artificial intelligence with mass surveillance in the past decade, and TikTok is only the latest iteration. 

Companies like Huawei or the state-owned CCTV manufacturers Hikvision and Dahua have already reached the level of worry in the European Union and been seriously considered by communications agencies and parliaments. As a result, Hikvision fever cameras, used during COVID, have already been banned from the premises due to human rights concerns. The Chinese Communist Party uses these cameras in serious human rights abuses against its Uyghur population.

It is time for the EU to step up its measures regarding TikTok as well before it is too late. We must emphasize that in expanding differences between liberal democracies and illiberal ones, the free world must understand how to properly address the technologies built and controlled by totalitarian regimes, hoping we can avoid severe security issues that will harm us in the long run. 

Therefore, the EU must consider smart policies to counter or curb TikTok’s influence among our state and governmental institutions. It may be a small step, but in the end we must favor technologies that help empower consumers and citizens, rather than subjugate them to the malicious influence of a totalitarian regime.

Pentingnya Kerja Sama Internasional untuk Meningkatkan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia

Perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan salah satu instrumen yang tidak terpisahkan dan sangat penting untuk meningkatkan inovasi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Dengan adanya perlindungan kekayaan intelektual yang kuat, maka kita akan memastikan bahwa para inovator dan pekerja kreatif akan mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang mereka buat.

Inovasi tentu merupakan hal yang sangat krusial untuk mengembangkan industri, khususnya industri yang sangat bertumpu pada kreativitas seperti industri kreatif. Terlebih lagi, kita saat ini tinggal di era digital dengan perkembangan teknologi yang begitu pesat. Menjadi negara yang inovatif tentu merupakan sebuah keharusan.

Tanpa adanya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual yang kuat, maka para inovator dan pekerja industri kreatif tidak akan bisa untuk mendapatkan hak mereka atas hasil karya yang mereka buat, karena karya tersebut dapat dengan mudah dibajak oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Dengan demikian, insentif seseorang untuk berkarya dan berinovasi juga akan semakin menurun.

Di Indonesia sendiri, masih terdapat tantangan yang tidak sedikit dalam menegakkan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Bila kita pergi ke banyak pusat perbelanjaan di berbagai kota misalnya, dengan mudah kita bisa menemukan banyak produk-produk bajakan dalam berbagai bentuk, mulai dari pakaian, peralatan rumah tangga, dan lain sebagainya.

Kemajuan teknologi, yang tentunya membawa manfaat yang sangat besar bagi Indonesia, juga menimbulkan tantangan lain yang harus bisa kita selesaikan bersama. Melalui berbagai toko di dunia maya misalnya, kita bisa dengan mudah mendapatkan banyak produk bajakan. Selain itu, perkembangan teknologi juga membuat berbagai karya seni seperti musik dan film bisa dibajak dan diakses dengan lebih mudah oleh banyak orang.

Selain itu, hal lain yang juga sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah, persoalan mengenai pembajakan karya dan pelanggaran terhadap hak kekayaan intelektual bukan hanya hal yang terjadi di Indonesia. Masalah ini merupakan masalah yang memiliki ruang lingkup global, dan oleh karena itu kerja sama dengan negara lain atau lembaga internasional merupakan hal yang sangat penting.

Tidak sedikit misalnya, barang-barang dan juga produk bajakan yang masuk ke Indonesia yang diproduksi di negara lain. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Bea Cukai Indonesia berhasil menyita lebih dari 800.000 produk pulpen bajakan yang diimpor dari China (dgip.go.id, 9/1/2020).

Indonesia sendiri saat ini sudah melakukan beberapa program kerja sama dengan lembaga internasional terkait dengan penguatan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Pemerintah Indonesia, melalui Dirjen Kekayaan Intelektual (DJKI) bersama dengan Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – Digital Economy Steering Group (APEC-DESG) menggelar workshop internasional di Nusa Dua, Bali (nusabali.com, 29/11/2022).

Salah satu dari tujuan diadakannya acara tersebut adalah untuk meningkatkan kualitas pelayanan publik kekayaan intelektual berbasis digital. Salah satunya adalah melalui peningkatan teknologi, seperti Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI sendiri digunakan oleh DJKI salah satunya adalah untuk pemeriksaan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual untuk memberikan pelayanan yang lebih baik kepada masyarakat (nusabali.com, 29/11/2022).

DJKI sendiri juga sudah membuat program-program kecerdasan buatan yang ditujukan untuk mempermudah layanan pencatatan dan juga pelrindungan kekayaan intelektual. Dalam forum internasional ini, kita juga bisa belajar dari lembaga-lembaga terkait dan juga lembaga perlindungan kekayaan intelektual dari berbagai negara mengenai bagaimana cara terbaik untuk mengimplementasikan kecerdasan buatan dalam rangka memperkuat perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual.

Adanya forum internasional seperti ini untuk meningkatkan tentu merupakan hal yang patut kita diapresiasi. Melalui forum ini, kita bisa saling belajar dari negara lain terkait dengan perkembangan upaya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, dan juga pada saat yang sama bisa memperkenalkan berbagai hasil karya tradisional negara kita kepada para pembangku kepentingan dari negara lain.

Tidak hanya lembaga negara, kerja sama dengan organisasi internasional dalam rangka upaya untuk memperkuat perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia misalnya, juga bisa digunakan oleh lembaga non-pemerintah atau pun akademisi. 

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, diadakan acara Koneferensi Internasional Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelekual (International Conference Intellectual Property Rights) di kota Lombok, yang salah satu poin bahasan pentingnya adalah bagaimana penguatan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan langkah yang sangat penting untuk pemulihan ekonomi di masa pandemi COVID-19 (kumparan.com, 16/10/2022).

Selain itu, tentu ada banyak bentuk kerja sama internasional lain yang bisa kita lakukan dengan berbagai pihak. Salah satunya misalnya adalah melalaui perjanjian kerja sama ekonom dan investasi bilateral dengan negara lain. Indonesia sendiri misalnya, beberapa waktu lalu sudah membuat kesepakatan bilateral dengan Amerika Serikat terkait dengan hal tersebut, salah satunya adalah melalui kesepakatan Indonesia-USA Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) (liputan6.com, 17/5/2018).

Sebagai penutup, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk meningkatkan inovasi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Namun, permasalahan tentang pelanggaran terhadap hak kekayaan inetelektual merupakan masalah global, dan tidak bisa diselesaikan oleh satu negara saja. Maka dari itu, kerja sama internasional dengan negara atau lembaga lain merupakan hal yang sangat penting.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN