[Text/Observer Network Long Yue] In June last year, the Indian government banned 59 Chinese mobile applications on the grounds of "national security." Recently, the Delhi police in India were discovered that they are still using the banned Chinese application "CamScanner". The In

[Text/Observer Network Long Yue] In June last year, the Indian government banned 59 Chinese mobile applications on the grounds of “national security”. Recently, the Delhi police in India discovered that they are still using the banned Chinese application "CamScanner". The Indian police responded that it was an "inadvertent" act.

According to a report by the Indian media "ThePrint" on the 10th, a Twitter user named "TheLegalSquad" (Legal Team) tweeted on the 9th that the Delhi Police used "Scanner Almighty" to scan the files uploaded to Documentation of the "RTI" portal. The user

also posted several scanned images of documents from the Delhi Police. These images all have the "CamScanner" watermark printed on the lower right corner.

On the same day, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Delhi acknowledged this and responded on Twitter, "This was used unintentionally. We are correcting the situation."

Twitter user revealed the content picture from social media

Law student Aniket Gaurav, who runs the above-mentioned "Legal Group" Twitter account, told "ThePrint" that he noticed that some departments of the Delhi Police used banned applications to scan documents related to the Right to Information Act ( RTI) related documents.

"Scanner" was one of the first 59 Chinese mobile applications banned by the Indian government in June last year. At that time, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced that it would ban 59 Chinese applications such as Scanner, , DingTalk, , TikTok, WeChat, , Weibo, , and Baidu Maps.

Some Indian netizens also expressed doubts about the country’s government’s ability to “ban” Chinese applications. A Twitter user said on the 10th that the Indian government has banned "Scanner", and this Chinese application cannot be downloaded from the Google Store and Apple Store, so how can the Indian police still use it? Where did the police get these banned apps?

Picture from social media

In January this year, Asia News International (ANI) in India noticed that the local government of Himachal Pradesh in India was still using this Chinese application. The " CamScanner" watermark.

On November 24 last year, the Indian government banned 43 mobile applications in the country on the grounds of "endangering national security". Most of these applications came from China, and applications such as DingTalk and Mango TV were banned.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that since June this year, India has taken measures to ban mobile phone applications with Chinese background four times in a row under the pretext of safeguarding national security. The relevant practices clearly violate market principles and WTO rules, and seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises. China firmly opposes this.

The Chinese government has always required Chinese companies to carry out foreign cooperation on the basis of complying with international rules and local laws and regulations. The Indian government has the responsibility to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of international investors, including Chinese companies, in accordance with market principles. The essence of China-India economic and trade cooperation is mutual benefit and win-win results. India should immediately correct this discriminatory practice to avoid causing greater harm to bilateral cooperation.

On the 5th of this month, the Trump administration also used the so-called "national security" as an excuse to announce that it would scan 8 models including Almighty King, Alipay , QQ Wallet, Eggplant Express, Tencent QQ, VMate, WPS Office, and WeChat Pay. Chinese applications are included in the "blacklist". This executive order will take effect 45 days after it is announced.

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com and may not be reproduced without authorization.