U.S. President Donald Trump has stepped up a conflict with China over security and technology by barring Americans from investing in companies that U.S. officials say are owned or controlled by the Chinese military.
The Chinese government accused Washington of misusing national security as an excuse to hamper competition and warned Friday that Trump’s order would hurt U.S. and other investors worldwide.
The impact of Thursday’s order wasn’t immediately clear but it could add to pressure on companies including telecom equipment giant Huawei and video surveillance provider Hikvision that already face U.S. export bans and other sanctions.
It is Trump’s first major action toward China since he lost his reelection bid to challenger Joe Biden. Economists and political analysts had said that even if Trump was defeated he was likely to launch more actions against Beijing before leaving office on Jan. 20.
Political analysts expect little change in policy under Biden due to widespread frustration with China’s trade and human rights records and accusations of spying and technology theft.
China’s foreign ministry on Friday accused Washington of “wantonly suppressing Chinese companies under the pretext of national security” and violating market principles.
“The U.S. government maliciously slandered China’s military-civilian integration development policy out of political motives and abused national power to unreasonably suppress Chinese companies,” said a foreign ministry spokesman, Wang Wenbin.
“This move will not only seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies, but will also damage the interests of investors from all countries, including the United States,” Wang said.
He said Beijing will “firmly safeguard” the rights of Chinese companies, a statement Beijing often makes following unwelcome U.S. policy changes but that often results in no action.
U.S. officials complain China’s ruling Communist Party takes advantage of access to American technology and investment to expand its military, already one of the world’s biggest and most heavily armed.
Thursday’s order said the companies targeted “directly support” the Chinese military, intelligence and security apparatus. It said Beijing “exploits United States investors” to finance military development by selling securities in American and foreign financial markets.
The order bars American investors from conducting any transactions in publicly traded securities issued by any Chinese companies designated by the secretary of defense as being linked to the Communist Party’s military wing, the People’s Liberation Army.
The Pentagon earlier designated 31 companies as being owned or controlled by the Chinese military. Many are military contractors or state-owned companies such as phone carrier China Telecom Ltd. But the list also includes Huawei Technologies Ltd. and Hikvision Digital Technology Co., which say they are private and deny they are controlled by the military.
Hikvision criticized its inclusion in Thursday’s order as unjustified. The company said it is independent of the PLA and never has participated in research and development for “military applications.”
“As we have shown time and again, Hikvision is not a ‘Chinese military company,'” a Hikvision statement said. “These punitive actions against the company do not make America, or the world, any safer.”
Most of those companies have no shares traded in the United States but many sell stocks, bonds and other securities in markets outside mainland China that are accessible to American investors.
Sales made to divest securities of those companies will be allowed until one year from now on Nov. 11, 2021.
BEIJING (AP) – By JOE McDONALD AP Business Writer
AstraZeneca manufacturing error clouds vaccine study results
A statement describing the error came days after the company and the university described the shots as “highly effective” and made no mention of why some study participants didn’t receive as much vaccine in the first of two shots as expected.
In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62% effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70% effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.
The partial results announced Monday are from large ongoing studies in the U.K. and Brazil designed to determine the optimal dose of vaccine, as well as examine safety and effectiveness. Multiple combinations and doses were tried in the volunteers. They were compared to others who were given a meningitis vaccine or a saline shot.
Did Researchers Mean to Give a Half Dose?
Before they begin their research, scientists spell out all the steps they are taking, and how they will analyze the results. Any deviation from that protocol can put the results in question.
In a statement Wednesday, Oxford University said some of the vials used in the trial didn’t have the right concentration of vaccine so some volunteers got a half dose. The university said that it discussed the problem with regulators, and agreed to complete the late stage trial with two groups. The manufacturing problem has been corrected, according to the statement.
What About the Results Themselves?
Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.
Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.
Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70% effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank.
“You’ve taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn’t represent either of the doses,” he said of the figure. “I think many people are having trouble with that.”
Why Would a Smaller First Dose Be More Effective?
Oxford researchers say they aren’t certain and they are working to uncover the reason.
Sarah Gilbert, one of the Oxford scientists leading the research, said the answer is probably related to providing exactly the right amount of vaccine to trigger the best immune response.
“It’s the Goldilocks amount that you want, I think, not too little and not too much. Too much could give you a poor quality response as well,” she said. “So you want just the right amount and it’s a bit hit and miss when you’re trying to go quickly to get that perfect first time.”
What Are the Next Steps?
Details of the trial results will be published in medical journals and provided to U.K. regulators so they can decide whether to authorize distribution of the vaccine. Those reports will include a detailed breakdown that includes demographic and other information about who got sick in each group, and give a more complete picture of how effective the vaccine is.
Moncef Slaoui, who leads the U.S. coronavirus vaccine program Operation Warp Speed, said Tuesday in a call with reporters that U.S. officials are trying to determine what immune response the vaccine produced, and may decide to modify the AstraZeneca study in the U.S. to include a half dose.
“But we want it to be based on data and science,” he said.
EU plans new rules giving Europeans more control of data
The European Union is laying out new standards for data giving Europeans more control over their personal information as it seeks to counter the power of U.S. and Chinese tech companies.
The EU’s executive Commission on Wednesday proposed new rules on the handling of data that would aim to give people, businesses and government bodies the confidence to share their information in a European data market.
The proposed legislation would would spell out how industrial and government data – normally off limits because of intellectual property rights, commercial confidentiality or privacy rights – could be shared to help society or boost the economy. The bloc’s strict privacy rules would still apply, with mechanisms in place to preserve confidentiality or anonymity.
The aim is to drive innovation in areas such as health care or climate change by allowing data to be more easily shared with companies or researchers.
Individuals could choose to donate their data for altruistic reasons – for example, a person with a rare disease providing their health information to medical researchers. Or people could allow access for a fee or use of a service. The new rules could pose a challenge to big tech companies like Google and Facebook that currently make billions in revenue by using data to sell ads and other services.
The proposal, known as the Digital Governance Act, calls for raising trust in data sharing by setting up a new system involving neutral and trustworthy middlemen who act as brokers of pools of data.
Europeans would be able to get more control of their data through “personal data spaces” that have tools and services that let them decide who can access their data and for what purpose.
“The framework offers an alternative model to the current data handling practices offered by big tech platforms,” the EU’s Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said at a press briefing in Brussels.
Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner, said the regulations would help Europe become the world’s No. 1 “data continent.”
“With the ever-growing role of industrial data in our economy, Europe needs an open yet sovereign Single Market for data,” he said.
LONDON (AP) — By KELVIN CHAN Associated Press.
UK telecom companies face big fines under new security law
Telecom companies in Britain face hefty fines if they don’t comply with strict new security rules under a new law proposed in Parliament on Tuesday that is aimed at blocking high-risk equipment suppliers like China’s Huawei.
The Telecommunications (Security) Bill tightens security requirements for new high speed 5G wireless and fiber optic networks, with the threat of fines of up to either 10% of sales or 100,000 pounds ($134,000) a day for companies that don’t follow the rules.
The draft law paves the way for the U.K. government to formalize Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision in July prohibiting Huawei from building Britain’s 5G mobile phone networks because of security concerns.
The British government said it was bringing in the ban – reversing an earlier plan to give Huawei a limited role – because U.S. sanctions made it impossible to ensure the security of its networking gear. Wireless carriers were also ordered to rip out any existing Huawei 5G equipment from their networks by 2027. The Chinese company is one of the flashpoints in a broader global battle between Washington and Beijing over trade and technology.
The new rules are a major step to protecting the U.K. from hostile cyber activity by state actors or criminals, the government said, citing previous cyberattacks attributed to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
“This groundbreaking bill will give the U.K. one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world and allow us to take the action necessary to protect our networks,” Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden said.
The bill, which needs to be approved by Parliament, spells out tougher security standards for the electronic equipment and software at mobile phone mast sites and in telephone exchanges that handle internet traffic and telephone calls.
Huawei said it was disappointed that the U.K. government was looking to exclude it from the 5G rollout.
“This decision is politically-motivated and not based on a fair evaluation of the risks,” said Vice President Victor Zhang. “It does not serve anyone’s best interests as it would move Britain into the digital slow lane and put at risk the government’s levelling up agenda.”
Ways for remote workers to stop cybercriminals
Mazen A. Dohaji, Vice President (iMETA) at LogRhythm
The importance of IoMT security across the healthcare system
Huawei has lost the UK telecoms market
5 Reasons Why… Telecoms is Important in Society
Telecom Sales Strategies that will Bring You Success in 2020
NEOM: A $500 Billion smart-city to be built in Saudi Arabia
10 tech facts you should know today 03/04/2020
- MedTech2 weeks ago
Pfizer and BioNTech develop vaccine candidate against COVID-19
- Press Releases2 weeks ago
Transforming Culture in the Kingdom: How ‘stc’ Focused on People to Compete in the Digital Age
- News3 weeks ago
Walmart abandons shelf-scanning robots, lets humans do work
- MedTech3 weeks ago
AI Against Covid-19 – can your cough reveal your condition?
- Feature Articles2 weeks ago
TelkomONE to become South Africa’s first streaming platform
- 5G3 weeks ago
The (relay) race is on for CSPs to capture 5G revenue
- Feature Articles2 weeks ago
Three ways Fintech is empowering youth in Africa
- Press Releases2 weeks ago
How National Milling’s future-proof network system can meet the data demands of tomorrow