Does Didi Chuxing Exist in China?
If it is proved that Didi Chuxing, the Uber-like app that has been accused of fraud, didn’t exist in China, its parent company will have to return up to US$300 million in assets to the Chinese government, prosecutors said Monday in a lawsuit.
This is the second attempt by the company to challenge the findings in an administrative proceeding launched by its parent company’s state-backed regulator. The company’s latest move came a few hours after China’s Internet Crimes Commission released its inquiry into the case.
The company has been under police scrutiny from regulators in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and the allegations by the commission’s anti-fraud unit have centered on one of the country’s largest app-based taxi firms.
Didi Chuxing didn’t exist in China. And it’s not Uber – it was founded by a former chief technology officer of Google, as part of a business agreement with investors to operate in China.
The investigation of Didi is now moving to a new phase, with prosecutors announcing the probe could be expanded to include additional companies to include more questions about the company’s security, such as allegations an app was linked to a phishing scheme.
According to the complaint, Didi’s parent company, the Hao Fung Group, has paid more than US$150 million in fines, fees, and taxes to Chinese authorities and is “currently under investigation by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the State Security Bureau.
The new phase will focus in more depth on the security of Didi’s “mobile application” after several months of investigations by the authorities and the inquiry into Didi’s parent company discovered some discrepancies with information reported on the app.
“The investigation shows how the company did not have a working system of internal quality and security control that would have prevented an abnormal event from happening,” wrote the prosecutors in their complaint to the courts.
Investigation of Chinese ride-hailing giant Didi Global
“The company plans to install spyware in the computers of employees and customers, which can infiltrate their personal information and steal their identities if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time,” says an online blog post by the FBI on its investigation into Didi Global.
It’s no surprise that the FBI is investigating Didi Global, a Chinese ride-hailing company headquartered in Hangzhou with a massive fleet of vehicles and millions of customers. The company, which makes a number of high-end luxury vehicles, claims that its technology is secure and allows it to offer competitive rates via a free-market system. Didi Global’s founder, Yu Hua, has said the company plans to install spyware in the computers of employees and customers, which can infiltrate their personal information and steal their identities if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the blog post, Wray writes that the FBI is “deeply concerned” and “continues to pursue Didi Global for its illegal activity.
Didi Global is one of a few Chinese tech giants known to be using the latest spyware and malware, which has resulted in several companies and governments cracking down on their practices. Didi’s “Intelligence Department” monitors email traffic of its customers, including the social-media accounts of employees, and the company has created malware that it says was used to steal data and spread online fraud — including phishing messages that appear to come from an official source. But did they have to resort to cyber-crime? Is Didi’s tech any better than the tech of major Western tech firms like Facebook? The answer may be “yes,” as in this article.
Didi Global is a global company in China, founded in 2010. Its operations span across several countries including the United States, Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. Didi has over 6 million drivers or riders globally and operates from more than 50 cities across China. It has over 17 million customers in China and nearly 20 million of the company’s 30 million drivers and riders are located in China. Its largest competitor is Uber, which has over 120,000 drivers and riders in China.
Didi’s IPO roadshow did not include cybersecurity regulation.
Article Title: Didi’s IPO roadshow did not include cybersecurity regulation | Network Security. Full Article Text: After two years of legal battles, US and European governments have quietly approved a cybersecurity regulation that appears to put the brakes on companies like Doi’s that are rushing to comply with an order from the government.
[Note for the source of the following article: The European Union has recently passed a cybersecurity regulation, which will make it nearly impossible for companies that are in the United States to compete in global markets. As a result, the EU intends to push companies to move their headquarters overseas due to the security threat of the US government.
In mid-May 2012, the US Department of Justice issued a global order asking companies to either comply with the US government’s cybersecurity regulations or face significant penalties and possible criminal prosecution. The order was issued in the Name of the President, pursuant to Executive Order (E. ) 12,835, signed by President Obama on February 28, 2011. It mandates that companies must comply with a set of minimum cybersecurity standards that would require them to adopt a comprehensive security posture, and it imposes a $5 million penalty on the companies that do not. The executive order also allows the government to enter foreign countries to take away the goods and/or services of companies without the approval of the companies’ directors.
On September 16, 2012, the US Department of Justice filed a notice of proposed regulations with the Federal Register, to determine what would constitute a cybersecurity breach, in order to determine how the proposed regulations will be applied to companies abroad. The notice of proposed regulations states that the law “makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly solicit, negotiate, or induce or attempt to induce any financial institution to violate” the order by knowingly or recklessly causing a cybersecurity breach. Additionally, the notice states that the law “makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly solicit or induce any person to cause a cybersecurity breach.
The US Department of Justice’s Cybersecurity Division is responsible for issuing these regulations. After the notice of proposed regulations was received, the EU Parliament adopted a resolution (resolution 2236/12) that called on the European Commission to implement cybersecurity measures in accordance with the E. The following is an excerpt from the resolution.
Didi was backed by tech giants.
Article Title: Didi was backed by tech giants | Network Security. Full Article Text: Why did Apple release a version of iOS that allowed a user to bypass Apple’s iPhone security features and what consequences that would have, in my humble opinion.
Apple is known to have provided access to a wide range of iPhone security features, including Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint reader, Face ID and iCloud Keychain, when it released iOS 7. However, when Apple released iOS 7. 1 for the iPhone 5s iPhone 5C and 7 Plus, it did not provide the same access to bypass iPhone’s Touch ID fingerprint reader and Face ID. That’s what Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs is calling “a backdoor.
We are concerned that, whether intentional or not, this “backdoor” could allow an attacker to gain access to the phone’s security features, possibly bypassing Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint readers.
The fact that Apple’s latest version of iOS 9 does not include any backdoor security features is a cause for concern. That is because, with iOS 9. 0 installed, the backdoor feature is not actually enabled by default. It is enabled by configuring the iPhone. Therefore, enabling the backdoor feature of iOS 9 would allow the attacker to bypass Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint readers and Face ID in iOS 9. Furthermore, it could allow an attacker to bypass Apple’s security measures for other iPhone security features, as well as access to the phone’s Touch ID fingerprint reader.
As such, the backdoor feature of iOS 9 is an important issue to keep in mind, particularly when it comes to the new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which are being targeted by an attacker in this attack, with the intent to bypass Apple’s Touch ID fingerprint reader and Face ID.
Apple is not the only one that is concerned about the issue with iOS 9. 0: several other tech giants, including Google, have also been using their services for securing their devices and systems. In fact, Google has been using its Chrome browser as a security solution since 2014. So when Google announced its Chrome app for iOS, it was very much related to security.
We must emphasize that we are very much in favor of using a security solution that is open to third-party developers to create a secure solution. And, for that reason, we are pushing for security that goes beyond the level of Apple, Google and Microsoft.