{"id":146055,"date":"2023-02-10T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-02-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediaintel.asia\/?p=913523"},"modified":"2023-02-10T08:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-02-10T00:00:00","slug":"australia-to-rip-out-900-chinese-made-security-cameras-from-government-buildings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/2023\/02\/10\/australia-to-rip-out-900-chinese-made-security-cameras-from-government-buildings\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia to Rip Out 900 Chinese-Made Security Cameras From Government Buildings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"MediaIntel.Asia\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Australia to Rip Out 900 Chinese-Made Security Cameras From Government Buildings
\nThe Australian Defence Department will rip out more than 900 Chinese-made security devices from government buildings over fears they could enable spying by China.
\nAustralian officials announced the move after a six-month audit revealed the flabbergasting number cameras, access control systems, and intercoms of made by the Chinese companies Hikvision and Dahua in government buildings earlier this week. Before the audit, the country\u2019s Home Affairs Department couldn\u2019t determine how many surveillance devices were in government buildings, according to opposition cybersecurity spokesman Sen. James Paterson.
\nPaterson told ABC Australia that some government departments didn\u2019t know exactly how many of the devices from Hikvision and Dahua were in their buildings.
\n\u201cWe urgently need a plan from [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese\u2019s] government to rip every one of these devices out of Australian government departments and agencies,\u201d Paterson said.
\nWhen addressing the issue, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles said his agency was analysing the government\u2019s surveillance devices, the Associated Press reported.
\n\u201cWhere those particular cameras are found, they\u2019re going to be removed,\u201d Marles stated. \u201cThere is an issue here and we\u2019re going to deal with it.\u201d
\nThe U.S. banned equipment from Hikvision and Dahua in government buildings last November, citing the \u201cunacceptable risk to national security.\u201d The United Kingdom also took similar action against Hikvision that same month over \u201ccurrent and future security risks.\u201d Like Australia, the U.S and the UK worry that Chinese companies could be forced to hand over sensitive data when asked to do so by the Chinese government, which is required by law.
\n\u201cWe would have no way of knowing if the sensitive information, images and audio collected by these devices are secretly being sent back to China against the interests of Australian citizens,\u201d Paterson, the cybersecurity spokesman, laid out.
\nChina blasted Australia\u2019s move on Thursday and claimed the country was discriminating against Chinese businesses. At a daily news briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Australia\u2019s decision overstretched \u201cthe concept of national security and abuse state power to suppress and discriminate against Chinese enterprises.\u201d
\nShe added that China had always encouraged its companies to carry out business abroad in compliance with local laws, according to the AP.
\n\u201cWe hope Australia will provide a fair and non-discriminatory environment for the normal operation of Chinese enterprises and do more things that are conducive to mutual trust and cooperation between the two sides,\u201d Mao said.<\/p>\n

This data comes from MediaIntel.Asia's Media Intelligence and Media Monitoring Platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Australia to Rip Out 900 Chinese-Made Security Cameras From Government Buildings
\nThe Australian Defence Department will rip out more than 900 Chinese-made security devices from government buildings over fears they could enable spying by China.
\nAustral…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[144,194],"tags":[2086,3472,10315,2172,3402],"class_list":["post-146055","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-china","category-news-chinese-law","tag-australia","tag-chinese","tag-media-intelligence","tag-national-security","tag-united-kingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146055","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146055"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146055\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":146058,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146055\/revisions\/146058"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146055"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146055"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146055"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}