Chinese state media calls U.S. a 'surveillance empire' over trackers in chip shipments
China's state media criticizes the U.S. for allegedly embedding location trackers in chip shipments to monitor diversion, labeling it a surveillance tactic. This accusation follows U.S. restrictions on chip exports to China amid technological competition. China also expresses concerns about potential security risks in U.S. chips, reflecting escalating tensions over technology and security.
Reuters Flags of China and U.S. are displayed on a printed circuit board with semiconductor chips, in this illustration picture taken February 17, 2023. BEIJING: The United States' practice of installing location trackers in chip shipments at risk of diversion to China reflects the "instincts of a surveillance empire," China's state-run media outlet Xinhua said in a commentary published on Friday. Reuters reported earlier this week that U.S. authorities had secretly placed location tracking devices in targeted shipments of advanced chips to detect diversions to China, which is under U.S. curbs for advanced chip exports.
The Xinhua commentary, titled "America turns chip trade into a surveillance game," cited "reports" that Washington had embedded such trackers, accusing the United States of running "the world's most sprawling intelligence apparatus". The U.S. government has in the past few years tightened restrictions on the exports of advanced chips as well as related technology and equipments to China, as the two superpowers vie for technological dominance. The Chinese commentary follows longstanding accusations from Washington and its Western allies that China could use some exported products, from telecommunications equipment to vehicles, for surveillance, posing potential security risks.
In 2022, the Biden administration banned the sale and import of new telecommunications equipment from several Chinese firms, including Huawei, citing national security concerns. In January, it intensified scrutiny by targeting China-made cars and trucks. In its commentary, Xinhua accused the U.S. government of seeing its trading partners as "rivals to be tripped up or taken down," adding that "if U.S. chips are seen as Trojan horses for surveillance, customers will look elsewhere." China's cyberspace watchdog last month said it had asked U.S. chipmaker Nvidia to explain whether its H20 chips had any backdoor security risks - a hidden method of bypassing normal authentication or security controls. Chinese authorities have also cautioned domestic tech firms over their use of H20 chips, Reuters recently reported.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
6 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
August 17, 2025: Best photos from around the world
"Stop starving Gaza" march in New York City Credit: Reuters photo Wildfire in As Fermosas, Spain Credit: Reuters photo US President Trump meets with Russian President Putin in Alaska Credit: Reuters photo
Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul's disclosure - Balancing between candour and discretion
In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. Onlywhen India-China frontier vigilance and democratic resilience stand together does the nation remain unshaken. The storm over Rahul Gandhi's revelation that 2000 Square km of Indian territory, after the December 2022 Yangtse clash in Arunachal Pradesh, was under Chinese occupation, echoes political reflex, not reason. The Supreme Court's remark, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say this' may lead to effectively challenging the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. As the verbal crossfire escalated, the BJP charged Rahul Gandhi with endangering national security, while the Congress accused Modi government of concealing truths as regards China, distilling its attack as 'deny, distract, lie and justify (DDLJ)'. When Rahul Gandhi stated that China had occupied Indian territory he was not merely citing a number, but entering a long-contested arena where the boundaries between strategic fact, political contest, and constitutional liberty blur. Whether his figure rests on classified inputs, field intelligence or political positioning is a fair subject for scrutiny and may be for discussion. Yet the right to voice such a view, and the equally important right to question it, are constitutional guarantees, not privileges. Freedom of speech and the right to seek accountability remain at the very core of citizenship in a sovereign democratic republic. To ask the Leader of Opposition, 'The shadow Prime Minister' in Parliamentary-Constitutional terms, 'Are you an Indian' for stating a contested territorial claim, amounts to shifting the debate in ways that weaken democratic dialogue and fuel political polarization. The Constitution that empowers the 'Prime Minister' to negotiate with the neighbouring country, equally empowers the 'shadow Prime Minister' to question those negotiations. In 'The Wisdom of China and India', Lin Yutang described the balance between 'candour and discretion' as a hallmark of enduring civilizations, a balance that means being honest and open while remaining mindful of context, audience, and the potential impact of words. Yutang presented this not as a formal political dictum but as part of a broader reflection on the qualities that enable civilizations to survive. For him, candour (openness and truthfulness) and discretion (prudence and restraint) are complementary virtues, each incomplete without the other, and essential to the society's moral resilience. His context, however, was cultural and philosophical, never about India-China border politics. Yet the principle strikingly resonates with diplomacy and statecraft, as in the case of Rahul's alleged controversial remarks. Though Yutang never used the precise phrase 'candour and discretion' either in 'The Wisdom of China and India' or elsewhere, the idea captures a central theme-truth tempered by restraint. These two sentences: 'Criticism as the highest intellectual effort that mankind is capable of, and above all, the most difficult attainment of an educated man' and 'There is no such thing as true freedom of speech……No one can afford to let his neighbours know what he is thinking about them' together convey the meaning. They underscore Lin's belief that speaking truthfully is admirable, but carries a cost like Rahul's remarks on Chinese occupation. In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. The Yangtse clash was no isolated skirmish. It was another calculated move in a long series of Chinese provocations designed to 'probe India's strategic patience.' Its pattern echoed the choreography of earlier confrontations, most starkly the bloody Galwan Valley clash of June 2020. In 2017, the 73-day Doklam stand-off, over a plateau claimed by Bhutan but critical to India's security, ended in what was hailed as a diplomatic success. Yet Beijing's road-building therepressed on, exposing the limits of such victories. The much-touted 1993 and 1996 'confidence-building agreements' between India and China now stand as hollow reminders that paper assurances cannot restrain a determined adversary. The 'right to expression and the right to question are not luxuries' for calm times; they are the 'democratic armour citizens must wear even in times of strain.' Guarding borders is a solemn duty, but guarding the freedoms that permit questioning is an equally sacred obligation. The India-China frontier is not just a cartographic demarcation; it is a living, shifting fault line where history, strategy, and politics collide. Since Independence, relations between these two newly freed Asian Giants have unfolded as a saga of misplaced hope, cultural nostalgia, strategic misjudgment, and unforgiving geopolitical realities, entwined with aspirations of Pan-Asian solidarity, shared civilisational wisdom, and moral leadership in a world still struggling to heal from the brutality of war and the shadow of imperialism. India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru believed that India and China were sisters awakening after centuries of slumber under foreign rule. He established diplomatic relations with Mao Zedong's China when many nations hesitated. Nehruvian diplomacy led to signing of 'Panchsheel'. Later, Nehru declared in the Lok Sabha, 'Panchsheel is not a mere diplomatic device. It is the very basis of our moral philosophy in international affairs.' Mao endorsed the spirit. Zhou Enlai during his visits to India reinforced the image of Sino-Indian friendship saying, 'Our two countries are linked by the Himalayas, and even these high mountains should not divide us.' Soon the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai' phrase became popular. Nehru's great grandson Rahul's assertion that 'China occupied Indian territory' should not be seen as weakening national resolve. This is not merely about land lost or held, but it is about the square space essential for free expression and rigorous questioning. Supreme Court questioning Rahul Gandhi is both revealing and troubling. Whether symbolic, rhetorical, or reactionary, such a query rests on shaky ground. Why should dissent or questioning define nationality? The 'challenge before India is to guard icy heights where the flag flies, yet, the flag loses meaning without civic freedoms' the wind that keeps it aloft and the moral frontier as vital to defend as is the territorial one.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Russia A Very Big Power': Trump Conveys Putin's Donetsk Demand To Zelenskyy, He Turns Down
Last Updated: US President Donald Trump served as the messenger to convey Russia's proposal to Zelenskyy during a private briefing held after he met with Putin in Alaska on Friday Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected an offer reportedly made by Russian President Vladimir Putin to halt fighting along current front-line positions in return for Kyiv ceding full control of the Donetsk region. US President Donald Trump served as the messenger to convey Russia's proposal to Zelenskyy during a private briefing held after he met with Putin in Alaska on Friday. After the Alaska talks, Trump said Ukraine should move toward a peace deal with Moscow, remarking, 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not." The Alaska summit, which lasted three hours, was the first face-to-face engagement between Washington and Moscow since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Zelenskyy has turned down the proposal, reported Reuters, citing sources. Russia already holds around 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory, including nearly three-quarters of Donetsk, which it first moved into in 2014. Trump added that he and Putin had agreed a peace settlement should be pursued without the precondition of a ceasefire — a condition that Ukraine and its European partners, until now backed by Washington, have consistently insisted on. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted on Truth Social. Zelenskyy has ruled out ceding territory, saying constitutional changes would be required for any such move. He described Sloviansk and Kramatorsk in Donetsk as key defensive hubs that continue to block deeper Russian advances. Zelenskyy has also pressed for binding security guarantees to shield Ukraine from future attacks. He noted that his discussions with Donald Trump included 'positive signals from the American side" on potential US involvement, but stressed that Kyiv seeks a lasting settlement rather than 'another pause" in the conflict. Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet Trump in Washington on Monday, with European leaders expected to participate, The New York Times reported, citing senior European officials. European governments have cautiously welcomed the talks while reaffirming support for Ukraine. They also signalled plans for tougher sanctions on Moscow, underscoring that any deal must uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
