Why not judge the concerns on their own merit?

Blocking a chip or other technology that's hard to vet is one thing.

Blocking mapping when the same is already accessible from space via spy and public satellites? Does not really makes sense.

Now, of course these cases can and should be compared, but so far it seems that citing national security issues in one case seems to be pretty baseless excuse, whereas in the other case it seems to have some merit, even if the actual ban of Chinese sourced components is ridiculous, because a lot of other things are sourced/imported from China with the same or more severe espionage potential.

> Blocking mapping when the same is already accessible from space via spy and public satellites? Does not really makes sense.

Then no one needs to map the road anyway, why bother?

The satellites don't provide enough information for self driving cars while they do provide enough information to be what China is considering a national security concern.

You're citing firms who have direct ties to the government. I would expect China to also block Lockheed Martin from acquiring Chengdu Aerospace - and nobody would bat an eye.

What the US government HASN'T done is say "sorry ZTE, you can't sell ANY phones in the US because national security". There's a very, very big difference.

You probably shouldn't cite Huawei, who was found guilty of outright theft of Cisco technology and software (literally copied it down to the bugs--it's how Cisco proved their case) when you are trying to cite examples of "victims" of protectionism.

Huawei are the poster child case you cite in favor of protecting your domestic companies.

Well, at least US/EU allow Chinese companies to create local companies operating internet services in their regions without insisting on a locally-owned "joint venture" with a local company owning the majority of the company.

I think the US/EU should retaliate on this particular policy for China specifically. This is way overdue.