Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
"Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake."
You are so illiterate that you compared the CCP to the Republican Party in an earlier post...not sure how you even came up with that comparison, but you seem unable to understand the concept that China has a SINGLE PARTY, the CCP, whereas the U.S. is a multiparty system.
Is there a difference? They both march in lockstep to whatever their leaders tell them to do and say.
Yeah, the difference is that there are in fact choices that U.S. voters have. In China, that is not the case.
"In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said."
The fact that Trump has to fall back on his fake case against Iran and hold the daughter of Huawei's founder as a political prisoner, kind of exposes the fact that his allegations of spying are just Protectionist, Nationalist bull.
The U.S. has no 5G Telecom system production; how could we be "protectionist"?
You and Avon B7 don't really understand what that term means, as if you would be inclined to.
You appear ill informed about Meng Wanzhou, as if I and others haven't posted enough on that subject.
Personally, I would like you and Avon B7 banned, but fortunately for you and him, I'm not the one making that decision.
You are just a common troll.
So, when you lose an argument you get huffy.... Got it.
By the way, even Trump is backing off of his false claims. You should take the hint.
I repeat myself.
Even if Trump's claims are false, that doesn't equate to the equivalence of the CCP with the Republican Party, which is absolutely what you were stating. I would have banned you just for that, and I'm certainly not a Republican.
You are in over your head.
Gettting huffy about it doesn't disprove the point: Both are 'toe-the-line', 'lock-step' parties with no room for disagreement. If you do, you're gone.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
I certainly don't confuse the fact that any country other than the U.S. that has opted to either ban or consider a ban on Huawei, is seeing oddly coincidental problems with China trade. Need I post links to that, or is that just more of my "paranoia" about China, rather than the obvious CCP connection to Huawei?
You really are not understanding how great a threat to world peace China's ascension as a superpower is creating. Why should the West reward China by risking Huawei 5G infrastructure, when there at least a few that are, by all measures, democracies that can provide the same technology.
You blame the U.S. for lagging on tech, which is true, but more the case that the U.S. relies on a free market to provide various technologies. In the brief time that the U.S. has been considering 5G, it is certain that the West did not expect to see a President for Life in China, nor a rollback in human rights in Chine, both very worrying, not to mention the massive military buildup that China is engaged in.
I find it odd how you can ignore all of these facts.
It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen.
They're using ANDROID. They don't care about privacy.
But if someone knows my iCloud password and gets in, all hell breaks lose and another "gate".
Go pound sand Huiewie....we dont want your product here you piece of crap. Suing our government? Who the hell are you anyway? This is America and we have the freedom of choice on what we wanted to use and our government has the right to choose as well.....Hear me? Go back to China I have heard you are doing good there. You dont need America to sell your cheated product.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
What's interesting is that Huawei is now alleging that he U.S. has hacked their servers and stolen emails. While I don't know if any of that is true, I do know that if the U.S. has obtained information about Huawei using National Technical Means, ie, spying, to determine the risk of Huawei 5G, I am all for it.
It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen.
the simple fact that the warning was taken out of context and exploited for political purposes SHOULD upset you.
I already posted proof of Huawei spying in Poland, and in the infrastructure that Huawei provided for the African Union. More to the point, Western Intelligence agencies aren't going to provide details on whatever spying evidence that they find, so as not to indicate any National Technical Means, ie, how they obtained the data.
There is a Court that does handle such things in the U.S. overseen by a Judge, but even if Huawei was able to use that, they wouldn't be able to see the details of any findings that the Judge would see.
Proof?
I'm going to pick this out as you speak of other people posting misinformation.
This is an example of misinformation.
You said:
"I already posted proof...'
You didn't post proof. Proof doesn't exist yet in the first case and in the second, far less. You cited a LeMonde article on the AU case which cited anonymous sources and which Huawei and the Chinese government not only denied but basically called the claim preposterous.
I do not doubt that, to you, this constitutes 'proof' and I could pass on that (even if it isn't true) but if you want to make claims of misinformation you should be extra careful in what you write.
Proof, they arrested one Polish National and One Huawei Employee; Huawei later fired said employee.
You obviously want to wait for the case to work its way through the courts system, so I'll just add that all indications point to guilt.
So you are more that willing to accept whatever Chinese authorities and Huawei state, but less willing to even accept that maybe, they aren't being truthful
Can you see the difference between 'proof' and 'accusations'?
That was all I was referencing and often don't even bother picking up on this stuff but you didn't provide any proof, and at the same time were accusing people misinformation.
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
"Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake."
You are so illiterate that you compared the CCP to the Republican Party in an earlier post...not sure how you even came up with that comparison, but you seem unable to understand the concept that China has a SINGLE PARTY, the CCP, whereas the U.S. is a multiparty system.
Is there a difference? They both march in lockstep to whatever their leaders tell them to do and say.
Yeah, the difference is that there are in fact choices that U.S. voters have. In China, that is not the case.
"In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said."
The fact that Trump has to fall back on his fake case against Iran and hold the daughter of Huawei's founder as a political prisoner, kind of exposes the fact that his allegations of spying are just Protectionist, Nationalist bull.
The U.S. has no 5G Telecom system production; how could we be "protectionist"?
You and Avon B7 don't really understand what that term means, as if you would be inclined to.
You appear ill informed about Meng Wanzhou, as if I and others haven't posted enough on that subject.
Personally, I would like you and Avon B7 banned, but fortunately for you and him, I'm not the one making that decision.
You are just a common troll.
In the absence of any evidence to backup US security risk claims protectionism is what US actions will be called.
Google it yourself and see how many articles come back.
I will go into a little detail.
AT&T has a working relationship with Huawei. AT&T spent over a year tuning the Kirin 970 to its network infrastructure to begin carrying the Mate 10 Pro handset. A formal announcement was planned for CES 2018.
After all the technical and logistical effort to reach that point it is hard to imagine AT&T went back on the deal on its own accord. It is widely reported that the US government simply pressured AT&T to back out. AT&T wasn't the only carrier willing to carry Huawei gear.
To this day AT&T continues to work with Huawei but outside the US.
This is an example of protectionism.
The US not having any real influence in 5G is is really the whole issue (again, Google is your friend, I've provided links in other comments.
In the infrastructure realm it is protectionism to prevent Huawei getting a foothold in the US market while the US frantically tries to catch-up. It is so out of the link that it is already eyeing 6G and willing to depend on EU companies to handle the 5G era. Even if it means using lesser tech paying more and taking longer.
Pure protectionism and pretty much confirmed by some unfortunate tweets by Donald Trump that were also picked up by the press and surely some foreign governments.
Perhaps we can call it extreme protectionism seeing that the US is taking its efforts on a world tour and not limiting its actions to home soil.
"Extreme Protectionism" in the face of increasing Chinese Authoritarianism, seems exactly as it should be.
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
"Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake."
You are so illiterate that you compared the CCP to the Republican Party in an earlier post...not sure how you even came up with that comparison, but you seem unable to understand the concept that China has a SINGLE PARTY, the CCP, whereas the U.S. is a multiparty system.
Is there a difference? They both march in lockstep to whatever their leaders tell them to do and say.
Yeah, the difference is that there are in fact choices that U.S. voters have. In China, that is not the case.
"In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said."
The fact that Trump has to fall back on his fake case against Iran and hold the daughter of Huawei's founder as a political prisoner, kind of exposes the fact that his allegations of spying are just Protectionist, Nationalist bull.
The U.S. has no 5G Telecom system production; how could we be "protectionist"?
You and Avon B7 don't really understand what that term means, as if you would be inclined to.
You appear ill informed about Meng Wanzhou, as if I and others haven't posted enough on that subject.
Personally, I would like you and Avon B7 banned, but fortunately for you and him, I'm not the one making that decision.
You are just a common troll.
In the absence of any evidence to backup US security risk claims protectionism is what US actions will be called.
Google it yourself and see how many articles come back.
I will go into a little detail.
AT&T has a working relationship with Huawei. AT&T spent over a year tuning the Kirin 970 to its network infrastructure to begin carrying the Mate 10 Pro handset. A formal announcement was planned for CES 2018.
After all the technical and logistical effort to reach that point it is hard to imagine AT&T went back on the deal on its own accord. It is widely reported that the US government simply pressured AT&T to back out. AT&T wasn't the only carrier willing to carry Huawei gear.
To this day AT&T continues to work with Huawei but outside the US.
This is an example of protectionism.
The US not having any real influence in 5G is is really the whole issue (again, Google is your friend, I've provided links in other comments.
In the infrastructure realm it is protectionism to prevent Huawei getting a foothold in the US market while the US frantically tries to catch-up. It is so out of the link that it is already eyeing 6G and willing to depend on EU companies to handle the 5G era. Even if it means using lesser tech paying more and taking longer.
Pure protectionism and pretty much confirmed by some unfortunate tweets by Donald Trump that were also picked up by the press and surely some foreign governments.
Perhaps we can call it extreme protectionism seeing that the US is taking its efforts on a world tour and not limiting its actions to home soil.
"Extreme Protectionism" in the face of increasing Chinese Authoritarianism, seems exactly as it should be.
Thanks for making that point.
But nothing to do with Huawei.
You persist in believing that Huawei is independent, yet you provide no proof, and in a country with State Controlled Journalism, is it even possible to find the truth?
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
We live in a world with rules of play, laws and common practices.
As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.
Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.
A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.
On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.
Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.
They are right and the argument is convincing.
The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets.
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
"Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake."
You are so illiterate that you compared the CCP to the Republican Party in an earlier post...not sure how you even came up with that comparison, but you seem unable to understand the concept that China has a SINGLE PARTY, the CCP, whereas the U.S. is a multiparty system.
Is there a difference? They both march in lockstep to whatever their leaders tell them to do and say.
Yeah, the difference is that there are in fact choices that U.S. voters have. In China, that is not the case.
"In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said."
The fact that Trump has to fall back on his fake case against Iran and hold the daughter of Huawei's founder as a political prisoner, kind of exposes the fact that his allegations of spying are just Protectionist, Nationalist bull.
The U.S. has no 5G Telecom system production; how could we be "protectionist"?
You and Avon B7 don't really understand what that term means, as if you would be inclined to.
You appear ill informed about Meng Wanzhou, as if I and others haven't posted enough on that subject.
Personally, I would like you and Avon B7 banned, but fortunately for you and him, I'm not the one making that decision.
You are just a common troll.
In the absence of any evidence to backup US security risk claims protectionism is what US actions will be called.
Google it yourself and see how many articles come back.
I will go into a little detail.
AT&T has a working relationship with Huawei. AT&T spent over a year tuning the Kirin 970 to its network infrastructure to begin carrying the Mate 10 Pro handset. A formal announcement was planned for CES 2018.
After all the technical and logistical effort to reach that point it is hard to imagine AT&T went back on the deal on its own accord. It is widely reported that the US government simply pressured AT&T to back out. AT&T wasn't the only carrier willing to carry Huawei gear.
To this day AT&T continues to work with Huawei but outside the US.
This is an example of protectionism.
The US not having any real influence in 5G is is really the whole issue (again, Google is your friend, I've provided links in other comments.
In the infrastructure realm it is protectionism to prevent Huawei getting a foothold in the US market while the US frantically tries to catch-up. It is so out of the link that it is already eyeing 6G and willing to depend on EU companies to handle the 5G era. Even if it means using lesser tech paying more and taking longer.
Pure protectionism and pretty much confirmed by some unfortunate tweets by Donald Trump that were also picked up by the press and surely some foreign governments.
Perhaps we can call it extreme protectionism seeing that the US is taking its efforts on a world tour and not limiting its actions to home soil.
"Extreme Protectionism" in the face of increasing Chinese Authoritarianism, seems exactly as it should be.
Thanks for making that point.
But nothing to do with Huawei.
You persist in believing that Huawei is independent, yet you provide no proof, and in a country with State Controlled Journalism, is it even possible to find the truth?
It for those who accuse to provide the proof.
I have no reason to believe otherwise. The onus is one the US and it hasn't even been able to do that.
Huawei operates all over the world - including countries with no state controlled media and Apple operates in China too (state controlled media and all).
Let's not even mention the control of the media by certain moguls in our western world, shall we?
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
What's interesting is that Huawei is now alleging that he U.S. has hacked their servers and stolen emails. While I don't know if any of that is true, I do know that if the U.S. has obtained information about Huawei using National Technical Means, ie, spying, to determine the risk of Huawei 5G, I am all for it.
Project Shotgiant. NSA. Edward Snowden. Prism. Etc
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
We live in a world with rules of play, laws and common practices.
As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.
Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.
A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.
On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.
Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.
They are right and the argument is convincing.
The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets."Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
"It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
You don't even realize the irony of that statement, and that is quite telling.
There is nothing in what Huawei states that is reassuring, and since there has already been wrongdoing by the company, I would assume that the "end of the company" is not a true statement.
I am citizen of a country that has done a lot of fucked up stuff in its history, but throughout that almost 85 years of post war caretaking, along with our allies, we still have a world that hasn't fallen into global warfare, functions well, and still operates under the rule of law.
Would you stake your life on China not changing that equation, because I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't stake my life on Huawei either.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
I certainly don't confuse the fact that any country other than the U.S. that has opted to either ban or consider a ban on Huawei, is seeing oddly coincidental problems with China trade. Need I post links to that, or is that just more of my "paranoia" about China, rather than the obvious CCP connection to Huawei?
You really are not understanding how great a threat to world peace China's ascension as a superpower is creating. Why should the West reward China by risking Huawei 5G infrastructure, when there at least a few that are, by all measures, democracies that can provide the same technology.
You blame the U.S. for lagging on tech, which is true, but more the case that the U.S. relies on a free market to provide various technologies. In the brief time that the U.S. has been considering 5G, it is certain that the West did not expect to see a President for Life in China, nor a rollback in human rights in Chine, both very worrying, not to mention the massive military buildup that China is engaged in.
I find it odd how you can ignore all of these facts.
The US doesn't rely on a free market. It believes in a market it thinks it can control. It needs influence, from the dollar as a reference currency through to technological influence.
If it believed in and relied on a free market, certain deals wouldn't have been politically blocked and countries wouldn't have to complain about US abusive practices: Bombardier etc.
Ant financial/Moneygram Broadcom/Qualcomm Etc
I can understand why certain decisions are taken but don't try to dress things up in 'free market' robes.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
We live in a world with rules of play, laws and common practices.
As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.
Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.
A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.
On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.
Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.
They are right and the argument is convincing.
The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets."Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
"It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
You don't even realize the irony of that statement, and that is quite telling.
There is nothing in what Huawei states that is reassuring, and since there has already been wrongdoing by the company, I would assume that the "end of the company" is not a true statement.
I am citizen of a country that has done a lot of fucked up stuff in its history, but throughout that almost 85 years of post war caretaking, along with our allies, we still have a world that hasn't fallen into global warfare, functions well, and still operates under the rule of law.
Would you stake your life on China not changing that equation, because I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't stake my life on Huawei either.
It took you until the last line to remember Huawei isn't China.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
We live in a world with rules of play, laws and common practices.
As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.
Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.
A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.
On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.
Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.
They are right and the argument is convincing.
The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets."Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
"It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei."
You don't even realize the irony of that statement, and that is quite telling.
There is nothing in what Huawei states that is reassuring, and since there has already been wrongdoing by the company, I would assume that the "end of the company" is not a true statement.
I am citizen of a country that has done a lot of fucked up stuff in its history, but throughout that almost 85 years of post war caretaking, along with our allies, we still have a world that hasn't fallen into global warfare, functions well, and still operates under the rule of law.
Would you stake your life on China not changing that equation, because I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't stake my life on Huawei either.
It took you until the last line to remember Huawei isn't China.
China controls Huawei, that's just a fact, as the CCP sets the rules, and one of the rules is that they have to do what the CCP demands. How much China controls Huawei at any time is unknown, but what is known is that the West can't predict the future in China, given the lack of an open society, so the West has to assume reasonable risk.
China isn't helping Huawei's case with the trade issues "coincident" with various countries bans on Huawei, hostage taking, and certainly, there is a huge amount of worldwide Huawei media and Chinese propaganda operations, that are creating backlash.
Do I need to link to those as well, are you well versed in Chinese propaganda, or do you want to start your own search with Australia?
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
Not according to US intelligence agencies, who have debriefed the senate's Intelligence Committee otherwise, saying that your favorite knockoffs are controlled by the CCP. It's also law in China that they have to obey the CPC and basically do whatever they want.
It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen.
Especially when it’s all the heads of six intelligence agencies, operating in unison.
The same agencies that said Russia meddled in the election and are no friends to the administration. Their findings were valid then, but now they aren’t — for the Chinese Cheer Squad, anyway.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
I suggest you re-read the article you linked to and pay special attention to the quotes.
There is NOTHING but fear, worry, concern etc.
Nothing solid. ZERO.
Six intelligence agencies. SIX!
And all they came up with was 'we recommend people don't use Huawei equipment' - just in case!
If they had anything they would ban Huawei phones outright. That hasn't happened and everyone knows why.
I did read it. Are you expecting the US intelligence to outline their evidence for you in a news article? Did you likewise personally review their data for why they believe Russia meddled in US election? I haven't, but I trusted them then. You don't? Or do you just take issue now that it's your precious astroturfing topic at hand?
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
"Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake."
You are so illiterate that you compared the CCP to the Republican Party in an earlier post...not sure how you even came up with that comparison, but you seem unable to understand the concept that China has a SINGLE PARTY, the CCP, whereas the U.S. is a multiparty system.
Is there a difference? They both march in lockstep to whatever their leaders tell them to do and say.
Yeah, the difference is that there are in fact choices that U.S. voters have. In China, that is not the case.
"In the years leading up to the Huawei indictment, U.S. officials had been capturing information that would influence the investigation when telecom executives passed through U.S. airports, according to a number of sources familiar with the Huawei and ZTE investigations and the Meng indictment.
For example, Meng arrived in the United States via John F. Kennedy International Airport in early 2014. The indictment says investigators found “suggested talking points” on one of her electronic devices, stating among other things that Huawei’s relationship with Skycom was “normal business cooperation.”
Meng had been pulled into a secondary screening at the airport that time as well, and her electronic devices were taken, according to one person familiar with the stop. After a couple of hours, the devices were returned and she was freed to go, the person said."
The fact that Trump has to fall back on his fake case against Iran and hold the daughter of Huawei's founder as a political prisoner, kind of exposes the fact that his allegations of spying are just Protectionist, Nationalist bull.
The U.S. has no 5G Telecom system production; how could we be "protectionist"?
You and Avon B7 don't really understand what that term means, as if you would be inclined to.
You appear ill informed about Meng Wanzhou, as if I and others haven't posted enough on that subject.
Personally, I would like you and Avon B7 banned, but fortunately for you and him, I'm not the one making that decision.
You are just a common troll.
So, when you lose an argument you get huffy.... Got it.
By the way, even Trump is backing off of his false claims. You should take the hint.
I repeat myself.
Even if Trump's claims are false, that doesn't equate to the equivalence of the CCP with the Republican Party, which is absolutely what you were stating. I would have banned you just for that, and I'm certainly not a Republican.
You are in over your head.
Gettting huffy about it doesn't disprove the point: Both are 'toe-the-line', 'lock-step' parties with no room for disagreement. If you do, you're gone.
Yeah except in China that means imprisoned in a hard labor camp, or executed. Sure, same thing.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world. And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.
But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull. Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.
So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.
Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.
"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries. “The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."
Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei.
That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.
Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.
5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.
The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.
"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"
Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity.
First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.
Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?
You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.
Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.
Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.
It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?
If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?
Reality is security isn't the problem at all.
I certainly don't confuse the fact that any country other than the U.S. that has opted to either ban or consider a ban on Huawei, is seeing oddly coincidental problems with China trade. Need I post links to that, or is that just more of my "paranoia" about China, rather than the obvious CCP connection to Huawei?
You really are not understanding how great a threat to world peace China's ascension as a superpower is creating. Why should the West reward China by risking Huawei 5G infrastructure, when there at least a few that are, by all measures, democracies that can provide the same technology.
You blame the U.S. for lagging on tech, which is true, but more the case that the U.S. relies on a free market to provide various technologies. In the brief time that the U.S. has been considering 5G, it is certain that the West did not expect to see a President for Life in China, nor a rollback in human rights in Chine, both very worrying, not to mention the massive military buildup that China is engaged in.
I find it odd how you can ignore all of these facts.
I don't find it odd at all. That's what being an astroturfer means. It's part of the job description.
Comments
You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).
Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting). Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications. Suppose that's the case. Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?
Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain? No. Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions? If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.
You really are not understanding how great a threat to world peace China's ascension as a superpower is creating. Why should the West reward China by risking Huawei 5G infrastructure, when there at least a few that are, by all measures, democracies that can provide the same technology.
You blame the U.S. for lagging on tech, which is true, but more the case that the U.S. relies on a free market to provide various technologies. In the brief time that the U.S. has been considering 5G, it is certain that the West did not expect to see a President for Life in China, nor a rollback in human rights in Chine, both very worrying, not to mention the massive military buildup that China is engaged in.
I find it odd how you can ignore all of these facts.
They're using ANDROID. They don't care about privacy.
But if someone knows my iCloud password and gets in, all hell breaks lose and another "gate".
This is America and we have the freedom of choice on what we wanted to use and our government has the right to choose as well.....Hear me? Go back to China I have heard you are doing good there. You dont need America to sell your cheated product.
That was all I was referencing and often don't even bother picking up on this stuff but you didn't provide any proof, and at the same time were accusing people misinformation.
As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.
Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.
A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.
On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.
Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.
They are right and the argument is convincing.
The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets.
I have no reason to believe otherwise. The onus is one the US and it hasn't even been able to do that.
Huawei operates all over the world - including countries with no state controlled media and Apple operates in China too (state controlled media and all).
Let's not even mention the control of the media by certain moguls in our western world, shall we?
You don't even realize the irony of that statement, and that is quite telling.
There is nothing in what Huawei states that is reassuring, and since there has already been wrongdoing by the company, I would assume that the "end of the company" is not a true statement.
I am citizen of a country that has done a lot of fucked up stuff in its history, but throughout that almost 85 years of post war caretaking, along with our allies, we still have a world that hasn't fallen into global warfare, functions well, and still operates under the rule of law.
Would you stake your life on China not changing that equation, because I certainly wouldn't, and I wouldn't stake my life on Huawei either.
If it believed in and relied on a free market, certain deals wouldn't have been politically blocked and countries wouldn't have to complain about US abusive practices: Bombardier etc.
Ant financial/Moneygram
Broadcom/Qualcomm
Etc
I can understand why certain decisions are taken but don't try to dress things up in 'free market' robes.
And more of the same...
https://business.financialpost.com/telecom/experts-us-anti-huawei-campaign-likely-exaggerated
China isn't helping Huawei's case with the trade issues "coincident" with various countries bans on Huawei, hostage taking, and certainly, there is a huge amount of worldwide Huawei media and Chinese propaganda operations, that are creating backlash.
Do I need to link to those as well, are you well versed in Chinese propaganda, or do you want to start your own search with Australia?
https://www.cio.com.au/article/633134/huawei-effectively-an-arm-chinese-government-us-senator/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-telecoms/senators-propose-bill-to-block-u-s-from-using-huawei-zte-equipment-idUSKBN1FR35U
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/arm-chinese-state-what-s-behind-huawei-indictments-n963776
...And aren't they subsidized or otherwise partially funded by China?
Get fucking real.
I don't find it odd at all. That's what being an astroturfer means. It's part of the job description.