Sounds like what Twitter will be facing in the EU but for quite different reasons. No one left to deal with the regulators.

Doesn’t everybody have the right to not answer questions? Americans don’t have to do this either

That's correct, they certainly have the right to not answer questions...and the US government has the right to interpret that lack of cooperation any way it chooses, and, say, ban their products.

What government can do is limited by the constitution. Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. Is it established that they have broken US laws?

Ok 20-day old China stan account.

Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another account is or you feel it is.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Have you read the US constitution? It is very short, easily reeadable in an hour. So if your comment is sincere, you would cite the specific clause of the constitution that you are worried is being violated. There is no such clause.

Not publicly, because they won't step up and answer questions, in public.

> Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products.

I don't think the right to sell goods is in the Constitution. What is in the constitution is an explicit grant to power to Congress to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"

It will be if they sell their banned products

> Article I, Section 8

> The Congress shall have Power [...]

> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

When it's some country's Congress questioning, there are usually penalties to not answering. But, of course, one can always just face the penalties.

Americans do have to answer questions posed by Congress or a court in many, many situations. It is commonplace for large public companies for example, to have to answer questions from regulators or Congress.

For example, any time there's a merger, the federal government must approve it to ensure anti-monopoly laws are not violated by the new market arrangement.

Or you may recall the famous cases of auto executives being questioned over car safety, or Zuckerberg being questioned over social media's effects on society.

Are you new to following US business news?

Are you just very confused and think the famous "fifth amendment" applies here? Go back and read it if so.

> Americans don’t have to do this either

I think his point is that you can choose to go to jail for contempt rather than answer anything. If your sit in jail long enough, the world moves on and your testimony is no longer relevant. That’s when a judge releases you (i think).

When called before congress? That's not accurate, beyond you don't have to, but then pay the price - much like these companies have.

Americans have to answer questions if you are issued a legal subpoena, when it's census time, among other situations.

Surprisingly, no.

You have the right to not testify/incriminate against yourself. Beyond that, you can absolutely be compelled to answer questions.

Many people have faced serious legal consequences for not answering questions from Congress, for example related to Jan. 6 riot. You do have the right to avoid testifying against yourself, so often Congress has to grant immunity from prosecution, in order to remove this legally justifiable excuse for not answering questions. I remember in the Iran/contra scandal, Congress was asked not to do this so that some of the people involved could be prosecuted, but chose to proceed for various reasons best known to themselves.

Zuck had to answer questions.

Yes, exactly. For those in a hurry, here's an excerpt from the executive summary.

``` Despite hours of interviews, extensive and repeated document requests, a review of open-source information, and an open hearing with witnesses from both companies, the Committee remains unsatisfied with the level of cooperation and candor provided by each company. Neither company was willing to provide sufficient evidence to ameliorate the Committee’s concerns. Neither company was forthcoming with detailed information about its formal relationships or regulatory interaction with Chinese authorities. Neither company provided specific details about the precise role of each company’s Chinese Communist Party Committee. Furthermore, neither company provided detailed information about its operations in the United States. Huawei, in particular, failed to provide thorough information about its corporate structure, history, ownership, operations, financial arrangements, or management. Most importantly, neither company provided sufficient internal documentation or other evidence to support the limited answers they did provide to Committee investigators. During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. These allegations describe a company that has not followed United States legal obligations or international standards of business behavior. The Committee will be referring these allegations to Executive Branch agencies for further review, including possible investigation. ```

"During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. "

This is a claim which can only be proven in a court of law.

So? No one's bringing them up on criminal charges.

If I think you're shady and you refuse to provide evidence otherwise, then I don't have to do business with you. And if I'm in charge of regulating business in the country, then I can prevent you from doing business here because of that perceived shadyness. It's that simple.

There's a decided lack of understanding in this thread about the US constitution and the role of Congress, and what this story is about. US Telecoms is a federally regulated industry. Congress does have the powers to compel testimony from individuals or companies related to this situation. If they're not satisified with the responses they can prevent them from selling into the regulated market. They don't need to engage the judiciary branch to do so.

We can argue IF this is "right" and IF these companies have been unfairly targeted, but please stop the misinformation about not having to answer to congress and requiring a court of law.

Ehh. Sort of.

Congress can investigate anything they want - the thinking is that this power is necessary to effectively legislate and conduct oversight.

The ban came from the executive branch. Nobody has a right to bring anything they want into the country. Wether you’re a citizen returning from vacation in Tahiti, or ZTE, you need permission. This ban is removing everyone’s permission to bring this stuff into the country.

Why would a court of law have to be involved? This is a Congressional investigation. Nobody is being charged with a crime.

As usual for you, you make a wild and vague claim because you have no understanding of US law and customs. In fact I doubt you have ever been to the US.

I wonder how many countries treat American telecom equipment the same way due to NSA involvement.

Not just telecom but phones, closed operating systems across any devices and basically any software.

I have no illusion how good and obfluscated user tracking is baked in products of google apple, microsoft et al. From time to time some case highlights their desperate needs to use and hide tracking stuff, ie ms office printing almost invisible fingerprints in documents, and that was way more analog era.

You can say though that most countries are US friends so there is nothing to worry. But even among friends, ie industrial espionage happens all the time, and just financial harm can easily go into tens of % of given GDP

What american telecom equipment? ;)

Is government involvement problematic? Many firms have government involvement, often in an under the table manner. For example Airbus. Government involvement is in itself no grounds for banning a company.

Airbus is a French company. France is part of NATO. In the event of war, France and the US would likely be obligated to be on the same side by their NATO treaty obligations.

I don't think you are very informed on this matter.

Airbus is not anymore a French or Netherland company (Airbus Group N.V). Since 27 May 2015 the company became a Societas Europaea (SE) (Latin: European Company).

https://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/actualite-econom...

Which government is involved is what matters here. The governments involved in Airbus are allies.

When that government is actively stealing your intellectual property, hacking your computer systems and installing ransomware, threatening war against an important ally...

And when the product is telecommunications technology...

I'm going with yes. The EU and the PRC are not even remotely comparable from the perspective of the U.S.

These companies have a board of Communist Party members that approve all company decisions/actions.

Even American companies in China have a Party cell. This is the law for all companies above a certain size. Those cells do not 'approve all company decisions'.

On a business trip to China, I accidentally walked into our company's Communist Party meeting (and was politely encouraged to quickly leave).

I have no idea if company-specific discussion ever occurred. Our office was mostly junior engineers so company decisions wouldn't be made at that level in any case.

Like United Fruits (now Chiquita) with CIA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

That obviously wasn't a very good move from Huawei and ZTE but it's disingenuous to claim this is what caused the current situation. It simply handed the US government a convenient stick when they really wanted one, and they would therefore have found one in any case.

There is a global geopolitical struggle between the US and China, and the US see China as an increasingly serious threat to their 'leadership'. That really is the bottom line.

This is a very detailed examination of Huawei's ownership structure: [0].

It was written after claims that Huawei is secretly state-owned. The author goes into some detail about Chinese corporate law, and shows that Huawei is effectively employee-owned (effectively, because Chinese corporate law limits the numbers of shareholders in private companies, so there is a legal structure that holds shares on behalf of employees).

0. https://www.pekingnology.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-resp...

Seems weird that people would think "secret ownership" would be public, about a company located in China, which controls ownership info.

That said, what is on the books is irrelevant, if the senior staff are in the pocket of the PRC. Or, you know, their entire family is under threat, a common way to compel in China.