By John Francis Carey
Peace and Freedom Commentary
Hillary Clinton should have a cold chill after Britain’s voters reclaimed their democracy and rejected “the elites.”
Journalists and pollsters in the UK tell us that one of the common threads among UK voters that decided to vote against the EU is, “a rejection of the elites.”
“The ‘we know better than the voters’ crowd in the UK were sure Brexit would fail — proving the elites do not know better than the voters.”
“Seen from the pro-EU point of view, the EU elites have been proved right in their belief that the people should never be consulted,” Charles Moore wrote for The Telegraph.
“The European elite forgot that democracy is the one thing Britain holds most dear,” Charles Moore concluded.
And who are the elites in the U.S.?
Have you ever heard Barack Obama talking glowingly about democracy?
He said nothing about a pro-democracy revolt in Hong Kong in 2014.
Past presidents were often heard to say, “We support democracy where ever it is — wherever it is found even in its very infancy.”
President Obama also refused a chance to support a huge outpouring for democracy in Iran during his presidency, choosing instead to make a business deal with the very people that the U.S. Department of State calls “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Iran had that honor from the State Department before Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry started to deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. And at the conclusion of the “Iran nuclear deal,” Iran was again named as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Who but “the elite” would decide not to submit proposals to the U.S. Congress (like the Iran Nuclear Deal), for debate and votes in our democratic process — instead choosing to create a new America through Executive Orders and failure(s) to enforce laws. Ask anybody who patrols the U.S. border with Mexico. Ask a huge cross-section of American police officers.
What nation has its own huge bureaucracy of people, never elected, like the EU in Brussels, who act in defiance of the people they are supposed to serve.
Well it’s the good old United States of America, the world’s oldest standing democracy.
Does anyone think the IRS, the V.A., the EPA and other federal agencies are accountable to the people that pay their salaries? If they are accountable, why is their service to the voters so bad?
When confronted by apparent IRS wrongdoing, President Obama said, “there was not a smidgen of evidence.”
Au contraire Mister President. As a lawyer, you should have said, “We’ll let the investigation take its course.” But President Obama knows that even his Justice Department knows better than the law. He pre-judged the IRS, not wanting to know the facts, just as he pre-judged the Hillary email caper, not wanting the facts to ruin his successor — who to most other lawyers, clearly violated the law.
Hillary Clinton has been saying continuously, in her own words, what the White House script advised: “There’s no wrongdoing here.” Hillary is basically saying that there isn’t a smidgen of evidence of her wrongdoing as the U.S. Secretary of State. That’s because she destroyed the emails. Those emails, by law, belong to the people of the United States. They were never “owned” by Hillary Clinton. She destroyed “public records.”
So much for the “most transparent administration in history.” More like the most lawless and arrogant.
Hillary destroyed emails, or had her staff do it, and not just a smiden of them, by all accounts.
What is a greater hallmark of the elite than the notion that they are “above the law.”
The last Attorney General has said that Edward Snowden “did us a favor” by releasing classified government information. Wasn’t he Attorney General to enforce the law?
Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General, said “Our most effective response to terror is compassion unity and love.”
She isn’t going to enforce the law? She wants us to love the killer at Orlando? Welcome to the elites. The Politically Correct. She isn’t talking about her job, she’s talking about the Dalai Lama’s job. Who does such a thing?
President Obama went to London this year to insult the voters of our closest ally by saying, “If you vote to leave the EU, on trade deals you’ll be at the back of the queue” with America.
In cases like this, past U.S. presidents always said, “We will respect what the voters decide.”
Bernie Sanders and his followers get this rejection of the elites. While Obama and Hillary Clinton wink and nod and say the economy is working (at least for them), Bernie’s follows know the U.S economy is broken. The Middle Class is disappearing. The rich have gotten richer, the poor are arguing over the “minimum wage.”
Every American should have higher hopes than the “minimum wage.”
People want and deserve prosperity.
And then there’s Donald Trump. A rich guy.
The rich guys that support Obama and Hillary Clinton reject a guy like Donald Trump.
He’s not from Hollywood. He talks like a truck driver.
They’ve called him a raciest, a misogynist. And other names. The New York Times seems to have a battalion of journalists assigned just to tarnish Trump. The elite media is always with the elite political class.
And when Trump supporters were bloodied by anti-Trump protesters, did anyone on the left loudly condemn the threat that lawlessness and violence means to our democratic system?
In Asia, China has been busy with the greatest confiscation of territory in modern times without a war — in the South China Sea. In the Middle East, Iran is still threatening the leadership of American allies like Bahrain. They just did it again this week.
Maybe we should say, “former American allies.”
In Syria, Barack Obama went to the brink of conflict in a threat to Bashar al-Assad on his potential to use chemical weapons.
Obama’s “red line.”
But Obama blinked. Putin and Assad did not.
Now Putin’s Russian military is a land-owner in Syria — and this after Putin had already taken Crimea and half of Ukraine.
Asked what Putin might do next, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Whatever he can get away with.”
North Korea has already tested nuclear warheads and is busily perfecting the long-range ballistic missiles to deliver them.
And in a cancer spreading everywhere with violence and death, the folks President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to call by the name they themselves have professed, the Islamic State, could be coming soon to an American city near you.
The President calls them Isil (rhymes with pencil). His Secretary of State calls them Daesh.
We can’t even agree on their name — much less a strategy.
The President has said this Isil is not an existential threat and the effort to destroy them may take years.
Obama’s Secretary of Defense says the shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando tell us we have to accelerate and not delay our work to kill off these radical Islamic terrorists.
So it is time we put this to the voters in the world’s most enduring democracy.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t want the voters to think this through like the Brits did.
Nobody is chanting “four more years.” The economy is not wonderful. There is plenty more danger in the world than there was when Barack Obama first moved into the White House.
That’s likely to hurt the elites like Hillary Clinton.
And it could ruin Barack Obama’s “legacy.”
But he has an escape clause.
He’ll blame Bush.
Obama Says Orlando Shooter Was ‘Homegrown’ Terrorist (JV Team — On The Run — Minimizing the danger — This seems to be a pattern)
The IRS “Targeted” 426 Conservative Groups for “Special Scrutiny” Due to Their Political Beliefs — Eric Holder’s Justice Department, Backed Up by President Obama, Gave Citizens Plenty of Reasons To Distrust Their Government
Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks to then Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Ji on September 5, 2012 (China got the South China Sea)
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov press a red button symbolizing the intention to “reset” US-Russian relations in March 2009. Photo: AP (Russia got Crimea, half of Ukraine, and Syria)
British Voters Were Angered By Obama’s Classless “Britain Will Go to the Back of the Queue” Remark — UK Brexit Vote a rejection of Obama, Hillary Clinton — Trump: They Voted To Take Their Great Country Back Again
Iran is the main state sponsor of terror, US report finds (June 3, 2016)
Kremlin insider tells Al Jazeera that Moscow is considering sending special forces to fight against Syrian rebel groups.
U.S. Economy, Obama Legacy
Obama Legacy: America’s middle class is headed toward extinction (Read the Associated Press report cited above)
20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency (Experts say this has added to the “burden” the government places upon businesses. Too much EU regulation was a complaint of Britain before Brexit.)
American wages remain at 1997 levels as recovery fails to lift middle class
John Francis Carey
Peace and Freedom Commentary
A friend at the Pentagon recently commented over lunch, “To know what Hillary Clinton was up to when she was Secretary of State, you’d have to ask Vladimir Putin.”
This not too veiled reference to Hillary Clinton’s private in-home email server is the kind one hears from seasoned military officers and intelligence official who suggest that Hillary Clinton’s disregard for the protection of national secrets deserves a merciless punishment.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld voiced similar criticism in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on the Fox News Channel on Wednesday evening, June 22, 2016.
Rumsfeld: If Hillary Were in the Military, ‘She’d Be Prosecuted’ Over Emails
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Greta Van Susteren about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and the ISIS threat. He said that if the former secretary of state were a member of the military, “she’d be prosecuted” for mishandling classified information.
Rumsfeld said that Clinton’s private email server had special compartmented and top-secret information, which shouldn’t have been there.
“I really believe that if she were a yeoman in the Navy or a sergeant in the Army or the Marine Corps or the Air Force that she’d be prosecuted,” he said.
Rumsfeld said he doesn’t know what will happen, but “it’s a serious offense.”
Rumsfeld mentioned that at least some of the Hillary Clinton emails came from documents marked as “Sensitive compartmented information (SCI).”
In my military career, we were taught that if you disclosed anything SCI intentionally or by mistake, the Hand Of God would immediately come down from on high and grab you by the balls and squeeze until you DIED.
I guess nobody cares about protecting those kind of national secrets any more — at the State Department and maybe not even at the Justice Department.We say that because President Obama’s first Attorney General was recently quoted as saying that Edward Snowden did us all a favor by disclosing highly classified U.S. government information.
Protection of the U.S. and whatever is classified has always been a bipartisan thing. We, as a nation, have always taken off our political jerseys to work as one united nation — to defend America as Americans — when dealing with national security information and national defense.
And there’s a bigger issue here. Our U.S. government men and women representing the United States of America overseas, wherever they may be, have always been giving the utmost protection.
To have an Ambassador killed overseas has long been held as an act of war among diplomats. We go to any length to protect them.
At least we used to.
It isn’t politically correct to say it but the truth is this: Four U.S. government servants of the people were brutally killed in action against the enemy. They worked for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In many circles this is an inexcusable sin. An unconscionable failure.
A video had nothing to do with it. The national leadership lied, shrugged their shoulders and moved on.
God rest the souls of those servants of the American people who died.
God will meet out his justice no doubt to those responsible.
Every voter should make their own justice on this when the time comes.
That’s why Hillary Clinton isn’t talking about her achievements as Secretary of State.
Killed at Benghazi: From left Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith died in the recent attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Libya.
Holder Praises Edward Snowden: He Performed a ‘Public Service’
The IRS “Targeted” 426 Conservative Groups for “Special Scrutiny” Due to Their Political Beliefs — Eric Holder’s Justice Department, Backed Up by President Obama, Gave Citizens Plenty of Reasons To Distrust Their Government
The groups were subjected to delays and requests for unnecessary information — which was tantamount to illegal harassment
By Jesse Byrnes
June 6, 2016
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released a lengthy list of organizations that it snagged for review three years after it became embroiled in a controversy over targeting tax exempt conservative groups for scrutiny.
The IRS filed the list of 426 groups last month as part of a class action lawsuit, The Washington Times reports. The names of another 40 groups were not released since they opted out of being part of the suit.
Sixty of the groups have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot” and 26 refer to “liberty,” while others appear to trend liberal, with three having “occupy” in their name, according to the report.
The IRS inspector general report previously said that it had reviewed 298 cases as of May 2012.
A government watchdog said in April 2015 said the agency made “significant” progress handling issues that led to improper scrutiny of tea party groups and it was no longer targeting groups.
NorCal Tea Party Patriots filed the lawsuit against the IRS and some of its officials in 2013, shortly after the inspector general report was released. The group asserted claims under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution and the Privacy Act.
As part of the discovery process, NorCal had sought IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of groups seeking tax-exempt status that were allegedly subjected to delays and requests for unnecessary information due to their political beliefs. NorCal also requested to spreadsheets that the IRS had given to the IG for its report.
The group had asked for this information so that it could identify other members of the class.
A federal appeals court Tuesday slammed the Internal Revenue Service for what it called three years of “continuous resistance” to turning over documents in connection with a class-action suit brought by tea party groups singled out for months of delays, excessive paperwork and scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status in 2010.
A unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that the IRS, in its unresponsiveness to the charges, “has only compounded the conduct that gave rise” to them.
The case was brought by the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, and other groups, in 2013, just after a Treasury inspector general that May found that the IRS had singled out tea party groups for months-long delays in considering their requests for tax-exempt status, a practice President Obama called “intolerable and inexcusable.”
The allegations against the IRS produced a series of high-level resignations at the agency and prompted congressional hearings and an FBI investigation, which found no criminal wrongdoing.
But the suit by the organizations is separate from all of that. They seek damages for what they allege are violations of the law by the IRS. But the case has never gotten down to the merits because, the appeals court panel said, “at every turn the IRS has resisted the plantiff’s requests for information” on the targeting practices, with the IRS contending both at the district court and in the appeals court that the records sought, specifically the “names and other identifying information” of organizations that applied for tax-exempt status, are protected by privacy laws.
That argument was flatly rejected by U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott, who is in charge of the case in the trial court. She accused the government of “just running around in circles and not answering the questions. … My impression,” she said during a hearing in the case, “is the government probably did something wrong in this case. … I question whether or not the Department of Justice is doing justice.”
The Justice Department lawyers representing the IRS then took the unusual step of seeking an order against Dlott — called a “writ of mandamus” — generally reserved for a “judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.”
It was that order that the appeals court denied Tuesday — angrily.
The opinion, written by Judge Raymond M. Kethledge, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by Bush appointee Judge David W. McKeague and Jimmy Carter appointee Judge Damon J. Keith, ran through the whole history of NorCal’s struggle with the government beginning in April 2010, when the group applied for tax-exempt status routinely granted to such organizations.
In July 2010, according to the opinion, the IRS sent NorCal a letter requesting additional information to process its application, to which NorCal “promptly replied with 120 pages of responsive material.”
“Eighteen months passed without further word from the IRS,” the court wrote. “Then, in a letter dated January 27, 2012, the IRS demanded more information from NorCal” in the form of five single-spaced pages bearing 19 separate requests, many of which had six or more sub-requests. The court wrote:
Among other things, the IRS requested a list of all NorCal events and activities since July 2010, with detailed information concerning the circumstances of each event and the content of any speeches or presentations made at those events; the names of NorCal’s donors and whether those donors had run for elected office in the past or intended to run for elected office in the future, along with the amounts and dates of every donation; and copies of all newsletters, emails, or advertising materials that the group had sent to its members or to the general public. The IRS’s letter also reminded NorCal that, “[i]f we approve your application for exemption, we will be required by law to make the . . . information you submit in response to this letter available for public inspection.” The IRS directed NorCal to respond by February 17, 2012—three weeks after the date of the letter—and told NorCal that, “[i]f we don’t hear from you by the response due date . . . we will assume you no longer want us to consider your application for exemption and will close your case. As a result, the Internal Revenue Service will treat you as a taxable entity.” NorCal eventually provided approximately 3,000 pages of responsive material.
The panel noted that while the IRS forced NorCal “to produce 3,000 pages of what the inspector general called ‘unnecessary information’” the agency then claimed it would be “unduly burdensome” for it to provide such information as the names of IRS employees who worked on the tea party groups’ applications.
“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address,” the panel said, “are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen — Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian — should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration.
“Those findings,” the court wrote, “include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called ‘unnecessary information.’ Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it.
“… The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws — all of them, not just selective ones — in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition.”
As of late Tuesday, the Justice Department had not commented on the appeals court decision.
The unusually severe tongue-lashing by the appellate judges followed a similar rebuke of the government in the unrelated but even more sensitive case involving a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, involving former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s personal email system.
Fed up with what he considered a drawn-out runaround by the State Department in the case, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia accused the government of engaging in “a constant drip” in complying with the FOIA request. “That’s what we’re having here,” he said “… and it needs to stop. … How on earth can the Court conclude that there’s not, at a minimum, a reasonable suspicion of bad faith regarding the State Department’s response to this FOIA request?”
In response, Sullivan took the unusual step of allowing the questioning under oath of seven current and former top State Department officials and aides to Clinton about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder said the national debate launched by NSA leaker Edward Snowden should be factored into any eventual sentence he’s given. | AP Photo
Eric Holder: Snowden performed a ‘public service’
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden performed a public service when he leaked classified information and launched a public debate about government surveillance techniques, former Attorney General Eric Holder said in a recent interview.
But that doesn’t mean Holder thinks Snowden should get away with it.
In an appearance on former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod’s podcast, Holder said Snowden’s 2013 leaks “harmed American interests” but that the light he shone on controversial government practices could mitigate some of the damage done.
“I know there are ways in which certain of our agents were put at risk, relationships with other countries were harmed, our ability to keep the American people safe was compromised,” Holder told Axelrod. “There were all kinds of re-dos that had to be put in place as a result of what he did, and while those things were being done we were blind in certain really critical areas. So what he did was not without consequence.”
“He’s broken the law in my view. He needs to get lawyers, come on back, and decide, see what he wants to do: Go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done,” Holder continued. “I think in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate.”
Appearing from Russia via videoconference at a University of Chicago event earlier this month, Snowden reiterated his willingness to return to the U.S., but only if he could be guaranteed a “fair trial.”
“If I had access to public interest defenses and other things like that, I would want to come home and make my case to the jury,” Snowden said. “But, as I think you’re quite familiar, the Espionage Act does not permit a public interest defense. You’re not allowed to speak the word ‘whistleblower’ at trial.”
Snowden took note of Holder’s comments on him, posting a link to the podcast via his Twitter account.
Former US Attorney General @EricHolder spoke about #NSA’s mass surveillance with @DavidAxelrod. In his own words: https://t.co/HSrlRCD5X8
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 30, 2016
Asked later in the podcast what he thought of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Holder criticized the tone of the Republican nominee’s rhetoric.
“The fact that he questioned the legitimacy of President Obama by questioning where he was born, what he’s said about Mexicans,” Holder said. “I think there’s a race-based component to his campaign. I think he appeals too often to the worst side of us as Americans.”
Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Department of Justice has become a politicized hotbed of left-wing legal activism.
What is Eric Holder up to? When questioned by congressional committees on sensitive issues like the ATF “gunwalking” scandal or the surveillance of Fox News’ reporter James Rosen, the attorney general either claimed ignorance or denied specific knowledge. When it was later revealed that Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen investigation, despite his explicit denials, indignant calls were heard across the political spectrum for his resignation. He became the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives over a reckless operation that killed a border patrol agent and numerous Mexican citizens. Yet Holder remained in his job, and it is clear that he has President Obama’s full support.
June 2, 2016 8:28 a.m. ET
BEIJING—A year ago, Hewlett-Packard Co.’s then-head of enterprise business, Bill Veghte, sat at China’s elite Tsinghua University, a bowl of hydrangea arranged before him in keeping with Chinese meeting style.
Against a purple backdrop announcing the arrival of a “Chinese Technology Powerhouse,” Mr. Veghte said: “Today we start the next chapter.”
And with that, a U.S. business became a Chinese one.
Since H-P sold 51% of its China networking business to Tsinghua Unigroup, an affiliate of the university, sales have revived. They are up 40% in the first four months of this year, compared with a 1% decline for all of last year, said Tony Yu, chief executive of the unit’s reincarnation, the New H3C Group.
“Once we became Chinese, some hurdles were gone,” Mr. Yu said in an interview.
Western companies have struggled with China’s increasingly stiff cybersecurity regulations and many U.S. tech firms are now finding that their best way to go forward in China is by strengthening joint ventures and conducting more of their business through Chinese partners.
Amid headwinds, U.S. tech firms look for Chinese partnerships.
Microsoft Corp., Qualcomm Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc.—which all have faced headwinds in China, including antitrust probes and espionage accusations—have formed new Chinese joint ventures in the past year tailored to meet Chinese security requirements. Newer companies such as Uber Technologies Co. have chosen to enter China through purely Chinese ventures with all their data stored in the country.
Beijing has recently shifted to a softer sell. At a tech meeting last week in China’s south, Premier Li Keqiang reiterated that security rules apply equally to all companies registered in China and pledged “a more fair, transparent and predictable investment environment.”
In practice, China has shown little sign of letting up; earlier this year, it further tightened restrictions on online publishing by foreign companies. In April, Chinese regulators blocked Apple Inc.’s iBook and iMovie services.
New technologies have connected the world more than ever, but in something of a paradox they grow increasingly dissimilar between regions as governments dictate local terms. In Europe, websites such as Google and Wikipedia increasingly diverge from their U.S. versions as European courts uphold individuals’ “right to be forgotten.” The same model of a smartphone bought in India and Indonesia will likely soon contain different components because of local sourcing regulations.
After Edward Snowden’s revelations about U.S. government spying in 2013, Chinese regulators have used both carrots and sticks to push foreign tech suppliers to localize product development and data.
A slate of new cybersecurity laws requires technology companies to store their data in China, submit to security checks and help the government with decryption if requested. Government agencies and key industries have been urged to adopt “secure and controllable” technologies, a term widely interpreted to mean Chinese products.
Companies have also been prodded individually: Last month after a visit from Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook, China’s technology ministry urged the iPhone maker to deepen its local partnerships and provide a “more secure user experience” to Chinese customers.
Qualcomm President Derek Aberle said in a recent interview in Beijing that the company’s new China-controlled joint venture for server chips would likely develop “something very specific to China” in the security area.
“They can take our platform and innovate on top of it and provide those components that wouldn’t necessarily be coming from us,” he said.
Qualcomm announced several new investments in China after it agreed to pay a roughly $1 billion antitrust fine and renegotiate its licensing agreements with Chinese companies.
Foreign trade groups say China’s cybersecurity rules make it difficult to do business except through a Chinese company. More than 20 U.S. and international associations signed a letter to China’s insurance regulator on Wednesday to protest draft security rules with data provisions and other requirements for the sector that they said would be an obstacle to trade.
Neither the insurance regulator nor the commerce ministry responded to requests for comment on the letter.
While big companies have moved forward with joint ventures, the obstacles have put a damper on deals overall. The number of investments where a U.S. tech company acquired more than 50% in a Chinese company fell from 15 in 2011 to only one in 2015, according to research firm Dealogic.
New technologies have connected the world more than ever, but in something of a paradox, the internet experience varies across regions as governments dictate local terms. PHOTO: ZUMA PRESS
To be sure, mistrust goes both ways. Huawei Technologies Co., in particular, has been virtually shut out of the U.S. telecommunications sector after a U.S. congressional report in 2012 suggested Beijing could use the company’s equipment for spying.
Huawei has said it doesn’t assist China’s government in espionage and has aligned itself with U.S. companies on security issues as it expands internationally. Huawei’s rotating chief executive took the unusual step last year of publicly urging Beijing to stay open to the best global technology.
In an effort to stem the two-way damage, Huawei and Microsoft—which faces a continuing antitrust investigation in China—are partners in a “Breakthrough Group” that is writing a so-called buyer’s guide for commercial enterprises to help them evaluate potential risks of various technology products, said the project coordinator, Bruce McConnell, a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security cyberspace expert who is now vice president at New York-based advisory EastWest Institute.
U.S. trade lobbyists say the global supply-chain fragmentation increases cost and vulnerability. “By trying to wall off your network, you have untested systems and that increases the risk of security flaws,” said Erin Ennis, senior vice president of the U.S.-China Business Council.
China’s officials have acknowledged the need to balance security imperatives with the economic value generated from open information flow.
“We must strictly control data flow across borders,” said Liu Yong, a tech-industry researcher with China’s main economic-planning agency at a recent conference. “But at the same time, we must be aware that data can only reach its greatest value through its flow.”
At New H3C, Mr. Yu said the company is better poised to land orders from China’s government and other sensitive sectors under local ownership.
“The fields we can plow have broadened,” he said.
—Yang Jie and James T. Areddy contributed to this article.
Write to Eva Dou at email@example.com
Max Schrems, seen in Luxembourg on October 6, 2015, was the first to challenge the “Safe Harbour” arrangement between Washington and Brussels on the grounds it did not properly protect European data. AFP photo
BRUSSELS (AFP) – The top US and European trade groups have warned their leaders of enormous fallout for businesses and customers if the two sides fail to reach a new deal on data transfers by end January.
The European Court of Justice in October ruled that the EU-US “Safe Harbour” arrangement allowing firms to transfer European citizens’ personal information to the United States was “invalid” because it did not properly protect the data from spy agencies.
EU and US officials have held several rounds of talks for a new arrangement with European officials hoping for a new deal by the end of January, and the four business groups mentioning a “deadline” of January 31, 2016.
“We are writing to convey the critical importance of your efforts to come to a comprehensive and sustainable transatlantic agreement concerning data transfers,” the four business groups said in a letter to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and US President Barack Obama.
A copy of the letter dated January 15 and obtained by AFP on Monday was signed by the heads of Business Europe, Digital Europe, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Industry Council.
“This issue must be resolved immediately or the consequences could be enormous for the thousands of businesses and millions of users impacted,” the groups said.
EU officials said in November they were taking seriously businesses’ concerns about the legal void following the court ruling.
It has alarmed Washington which says it “put at risk the thriving transatlantic digital economy.”
The landmark verdict stemmed from a case lodged by Austrian law student Max Schrems, who challenged the deal between Washington and Brussels on the grounds it did not properly protect European data.
His concerns were raised by the scandal involving Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency whistleblower who in 2013 revealed a worldwide US surveillance programme harvesting the data.
European Commissioner Vera Jourova said last year in the absence of “Safe Harbour,” data can still flow between the two continents under provisions of a 1995 EU directive where data protection, for example, is guaranteed by clauses in individual contracts.
But she admitted there was no substitute for a new arrangement.
A spokesman for the European Commission, the EU executive, told AFP that Juncker received the letter and that the aim was still to conclude the deal by the end of January but declined to say where negotiations stood.