Lawmakers want US Commerce Department to probe Chinese smartphone maker OnePlus
By David Shepardson
WASHINGTON: Two U.S. lawmakers on Friday asked the Commerce Department to investigate whether devices sold by Chinese smartphone maker
OnePlus
in the United States pose security concerns, according to a letter seen by Reuters.
Representative John Moolenaar, a Republican who chairs a House of Representatives committee on China, and the panel's top Democrat, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, noted that major U.S. retailers sell OnePlus devices for use on two U.S. wireless networks. The lawmakers said a recent analysis by a commercial company provided to the committee indicates that these devices may potentially collect and transmit extensive user data -- including sensitive personal information to servers under Chinese jurisdiction without explicit user consent.
Shenzhen-based OnePlus did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The U.S. Commerce Department also did not immediately comment.
BestBuy and Amazon.com both sell OnePlus phones for U.S. consumers, which operate on the
Verizon
and
T-Mobile
networks, the committee said.
The lawmakers asked the department to task its Information and Communications Technology and Services program with investigating OnePlus phones, including to determine user data types collected by OnePlus devices without explicit user consent "including potential transfers of sensitive personal information and screenshots."
Washington in recent years has cracked down on Chinese telecoms, revoking the authorization for China Telecom's U.S. subsidiary and others to operate in the United States, citing national security concerns.
The Federal Communications Commission in November 2022 banned approvals of new telecommunications equipment from Huawei and ZTE as well as telecom and video surveillance equipment from Hytera Communications, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
42 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Kalyani family dispute: Sister Sugandha Hiremath accuses younger brother Gaurishankar of transferring family assets
In a fresh development concerning the Kalyani family property dispute, Mumbai-based Sugandha Hiremath has alleged that her brothers have been 'clandestinely' transferring family assets. In her recent affidavit filed before the court, she has detailed two instances of her younger brother Gaurishankar Kalyani 'usurping' family assets in Karad. A message to sent to Mr. Kalyani's family seeking a response remained unanswered. Ms. Hiremsth has detailed how her younger brother used his goodwill with their father Dr. Neelkanth Kalyani into obtaining a Power of Attorney (POA) to manage his assets in Karad. The POA was meant only for managing the properties located in prime localities of Karad. However, while executing the document, the same was amended to grant power of 'gifting and transferring.' Moreover, name of a Gaurishankar group company's employee was also included in the POA in 2008. Using the document, two large properties were then transferred to Mr. Kalyani. Ms. Hiremath's affidavit details that as soon as Dr. Neelkanth Kalyani found out about the 'fraud' in 2009, he revoked the POA and also moved court. According to Ms. Hiremath, the two properties were 'illegally and wrongfully' transferred exclusively to Mr. Kalyani on the basis of a Power of Attorney which was 'dishonestly and fraudulently' obtained from Dr. Neelkanth Kalyani. To back her claim, she has attached a statement filed by Prakash Honrao, the employee of Gaurishankar's group company, in Karad court. In his statement, Mr. Honrao admitted in court that he was forced to accept the POA in his name and subsequently to transfer the properties using the document. This, according to him, was done under coercion from Mr. Kalyani's wife Ms. Rohini. He stated that since he was an employment of Mr. Kalyani and Ms. Rohini, he had no choice. The cases relating to the two properties filed by Dr. Neelkanth Kalyani are still pending in Karad court. 'On the one hand, my brothers deny the existence of the joint family nucleus as well the status of the properties of the Kalyani Family HUF, and in the same breath, both my brothers — Baba and Gaurishankar — are continuing to clandestinely transfer HUF properties to themselves by resorting to all sorts of nefarious means, and without maintaining any record of such transfers,' Ms. Hiremath said in her affidavit. She had filed a case earlier this year seeking her share in family wealth. She had sought injunction restraining her brothers from alienating any of the family assets which include several properties across the country and shares of about 250 companies. She has also sought that the court orders her brothers to reveal details of all the family properties. With fresh evidence, she has now asked the court to consider her plea to restrain her brothers Mr. Kalyani and Mr. Baba Kalyani from alienating any assets, including promoter shares of multiple Kalyani group companies, till the partition suit is decided. According to a statement issued on behalf of Baba Kalyani, 'Despite filing a barrage of cases, Sugandha Hiremath has failed to secure a single order in her favour from the courts evidencing the falsehood of her claims.' 'Sugandha Hiremath has therefore resorted to trial by media. The allegations against Mr. Baba Kalyani are baseless and malicious and are categorically denied,' the statement added.
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Shriram Life Insurance Partners with Muthoot Mercantile to Expand Insurance Distribution Network
NewsVoir Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) [India], June 28: Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited (SLIC) is proud to announce a strategic partnership with Muthoot Mercantile Ltd. (MML), a Kerala-based Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) renowned for its gold loan services. Through this collaboration, MML will distribute Shriram Life's comprehensive insurance products across its extensive branch network, enhancing accessibility to life insurance solutions for customers nationwide. This alliance marks a significant step in SLIC's mission to broaden insurance outreach, leveraging MML's strong presence and customer base. Established in Kozhencherry, Kerala in 1949, MML became an RBI-registered NBFC in 2002. Today, it operates 307 branches across India, with 85 branches concentrated in Kerala and others located in Odisha, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Tamil Nadu. Serving over 1.3 million customers and acquiring an average of 5,764 new clients monthly, MML primarily caters to the middle and upper-middle class segments. "We are thrilled to partner with Muthoot Mercantile," said R. Radhakrishnan, President of Shriram Life. "This collaboration allows us to deliver reliable insurance solutions to a wider audience. In Kerala, we aim to support the growing focus on financial well-being while expanding our footprint in regions where insurance awareness is gaining momentum." He added, "MML's deep-rooted presence and loyal customer base make it an ideal partner. Together, we can strengthen our distribution network and make meaningful strides in bridging the protection gap." The partnership is designed to bring personal protection solutions to Kerala and other regions where MML maintains a strong customer connection. "This initiative is designed to extend insurance solutions to a wide segment of the Muthoot Mercantile customer base. It also empowers us to deliver a diverse portfolio of high-quality life insurance products to our valued clients," said Richi Mathew, Managing Director of Muthoot Mercantile. "With Shriram Life's trusted legacy and proven expertise in serving diverse customer segments, this partnership brings meaningful protection to more families across India." Shriram Life Insurance is committed to serving India's underserved families needing financial protection. With a network of 478 branches across the country, the company offers a range of affordable products including term, endowment, ULIPs, and annuities--tailored for rural and urban middle-class customers. SLIC maintains an average individual policy size of Rs. 25,346 and a non-single premium ticket size of Rs. 24,112, significantly below the industry average. With 14.4 lakh in-force policyholders and Rs. 13,207 crore in Assets Under Management (AUM), the company drives financial inclusion by serving households earning Rs. 4-15 lakh annually, despite challenges in this segment.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship * Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients * Uncertainty remains on policy across different states By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
