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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
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.
Exactly. How the Chinese Cheer Squad can pretend their authoritative regime known for crushing dissidents is beyond me. China rules with an iron first. Me simply stating this fact would put me in a Chinese prison if I lived there. Sounds like a great idea to put them in charge of world comms, lol.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Is meddling in national elections in democracy a crime? What is your standard? Double standard?
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Is meddling in national elections in democracy a crime? What is your standard? Double standard?
If you are asking if the U.S. Government has meddled in elections overseas, certainly. I've stated that the U.S. has done some fucked up things.
I don't know what the law is, though there are likely laws being generated as we speak. The issue is that social media has a large impact on the electorate by planting false information or amplifying events using social media.
Should whataboutism be the reason that Russia and Chine are given a pass on the same? Absolutely not. Should China be given a pass on Confucius Centers that are distributing Chinese Propaganda? No, Should Academia take China's funding for technology that will obviously be transferred? No
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
According to the new guidelines published by Germany’s Economic Ministry and the Federal Network Agency, systems for networks including 5G “may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured.”
"It is unclear whether Huawei would be able to fulfill the requirements as they currently stand, because as a Chinese company it may be compelled to provide authorities in the communist nation with access to its networks."
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue. You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Is meddling in national elections in democracy a crime? What is your standard? Double standard?
If you are asking if the U.S. Government has meddled in elections overseas, certainly. I've stated that the U.S. has done some fucked up things.
I don't know what the law is, though there are likely laws being generated as we speak. The issue is that social media has a large impact on the electorate by planting false information or amplifying events using social media.
Should whataboutism be the reason that Russia and Chine are given a pass on the same? Absolutely not. Should China be given a pass on Confucius Centers that are distributing Chinese Propaganda? No, Should Academia take China's funding for technology that will obviously be transferred? No
Do you think US funding of FLG is OK? Do you think US funding of VOA is OK?
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Is meddling in national elections in democracy a crime? What is your standard? Double standard?
If you are asking if the U.S. Government has meddled in elections overseas, certainly. I've stated that the U.S. has done some fucked up things.
I don't know what the law is, though there are likely laws being generated as we speak. The issue is that social media has a large impact on the electorate by planting false information or amplifying events using social media.
Should whataboutism be the reason that Russia and Chine are given a pass on the same? Absolutely not. Should China be given a pass on Confucius Centers that are distributing Chinese Propaganda? No, Should Academia take China's funding for technology that will obviously be transferred? No
Do you think US funding of FLG is OK? Do you think US funding of VOA is OK?
I confess that I have no idea what FLG is.
VOA is funded the the U.S. Government, but run by a board on independent Governors;
"To the editor: The L.A. Times reported that the government-owned news service Voice of America, or VOA, faces difficulties because “the same chief executive who oversees the network also runs American networks that have long been viewed as producing pro-democracy propaganda” — including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
RFE/RL does not produce propaganda — though, like most U.S. media, it believes democracy is superior to dictatorship. It is governed by the same standards of journalistic professionalism as VOA and other U.S. international media.
While VOA’s job is to tell America’s story abroad, the mission of RFE/RL, which is based in Prague, is to create a free local press in nations where independent media do not exist or are still developing. RFE/RL provides accurate local news to a 20-nation region that includes the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
RFE/RL’s reliable news coverage in 25 languages attracts a weekly audience of 31 million people, despite the efforts of some regimes to block it on the internet, jam its broadcasts and intimidate citizens who turn to it for accurate information. Americans should be proud of RFE/RL’s work."
It's my impression that VOA is a very high quality source of news, and is noted for being a great source for learning the English language. It has been exceptionally adept at avoiding control by Political Parties.
Here's an example of current news, an issue of anti-semitism in Congress.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
According to the new guidelines published by Germany’s Economic Ministry and the Federal Network Agency, systems for networks including 5G “may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured.”
"It is unclear whether Huawei would be able to fulfill the requirements as they currently stand, because as a Chinese company it may be compelled to provide authorities in the communist nation with access to its networks."
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue. You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
Firstly, I do not need nor wish to convince anyone. If I wanted to do that I could post far more powerful arguments but at the risk of distorting the debate. For example, claiming something is proven when it isn't. I am not prepared to do that. It is up to readers to form their own opinions and I hope that what I offer can provide some counterbalance to statements from people who simply dislike China and/or Huawei. People who openly dislike them too. I do not get embroiled in histrionics when providing a viewpoint. I give my opinion and defend it with supporting links.
Evidence is and always has been a key factor in the resistance to US pressure. In the case of Germany, politicians have made this clear. In the case of 5G, and as a result of the guidelines (which I believe haven't been formally published yet), there will be added requirements of which, trustworthiness seems to be one.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
According to the new guidelines published by Germany’s Economic Ministry and the Federal Network Agency, systems for networks including 5G “may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured.”
"It is unclear whether Huawei would be able to fulfill the requirements as they currently stand, because as a Chinese company it may be compelled to provide authorities in the communist nation with access to its networks."
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue. You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
Firstly, I do not need nor wish to convince anyone. If I wanted to do that I could post far more powerful arguments but at the risk of distorting the debate. For example, claiming something is proven when it isn't. I am not prepared to do that. It is up to readers to form their own opinions and I hope that what I offer can provide some counterbalance to statements from people who simply dislike China and/or Huawei. People who openly dislike them too. I do not get embroiled in histrionics when providing a viewpoint. I give my opinion and defend it with supporting links.
Evidence is and always has been a key factor in the resistance to US pressure. In the case of Germany, politicians have made this clear. In the case of 5G, and as a result of the guidelines (which I believe haven't been formally published yet), there will be added requirements of which, trustworthiness seems to be one.
You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that China is an Authoritarian state. If you can't do that, then what business have you lecturing the rest of us about our "dislike" of China?
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
According to the new guidelines published by Germany’s Economic Ministry and the Federal Network Agency, systems for networks including 5G “may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured.”
"It is unclear whether Huawei would be able to fulfill the requirements as they currently stand, because as a Chinese company it may be compelled to provide authorities in the communist nation with access to its networks."
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue. You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
Firstly, I do not need nor wish to convince anyone. If I wanted to do that I could post far more powerful arguments but at the risk of distorting the debate. For example, claiming something is proven when it isn't. I am not prepared to do that. It is up to readers to form their own opinions and I hope that what I offer can provide some counterbalance to statements from people who simply dislike China and/or Huawei. People who openly dislike them too. I do not get embroiled in histrionics when providing a viewpoint. I give my opinion and defend it with supporting links.
Evidence is and always has been a key factor in the resistance to US pressure. In the case of Germany, politicians have made this clear. In the case of 5G, and as a result of the guidelines (which I believe haven't been formally published yet), there will be added requirements of which, trustworthiness seems to be one.
You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that China is an Authoritarian state. If you can't do that, then what business have you lecturing the rest of us about our "dislike" of China?
China being an authoritarian state is irrelevant. Irrelevant in the extreme. Or is this a new development?
I don't dislike China because of it and it has nothing at all to do with Huawei.
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 need to update your knowledge or sources of information. Which is not to say China can't be tough on rebellious populations like the Ughers. But translating that to the president of a corporation who doesn't toe the line is 30-40 years out of date. Basically, the same thing happens to a Chinese politician who doesn't toe the line as happens to a Republican politician: both are pushed out, so both know they need to toe the line and don't ask hard questions if they want to maintain their status.
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Russia has been meddling in basically all national elections in Western Democracies, including Spanish elections, for the benefit for Avon B7. In lieu of meddling in elections, China prefers to buy off journalists, and various former and even some current Politicians. Britain is especially at risk due to Brexit, as it Italy, which want's to benefit from China's Belt Roadway Initiative.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Is meddling in national elections in democracy a crime? What is your standard? Double standard?
If you are asking if the U.S. Government has meddled in elections overseas, certainly. I've stated that the U.S. has done some fucked up things.
I don't know what the law is, though there are likely laws being generated as we speak. The issue is that social media has a large impact on the electorate by planting false information or amplifying events using social media.
Should whataboutism be the reason that Russia and Chine are given a pass on the same? Absolutely not. Should China be given a pass on Confucius Centers that are distributing Chinese Propaganda? No, Should Academia take China's funding for technology that will obviously be transferred? No
Collusion is not a crime.
Conspiracy is. And a few dozen Russians have been indicted for it already
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're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
Really? So you fully understand why countries (not internet forums, LOL) ask for evidence and don't act on unsupported US claims?
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
According to the new guidelines published by Germany’s Economic Ministry and the Federal Network Agency, systems for networks including 5G “may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured.”
"It is unclear whether Huawei would be able to fulfill the requirements as they currently stand, because as a Chinese company it may be compelled to provide authorities in the communist nation with access to its networks."
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue. You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
And, with this, you point out the Administration's ever changing and devolving story about Huawei -- and its lack of evidence for its accusations of spying.
It is clear that Trump does not like China and views them as an enemy. The rest of the world -- including most of America -- does not share his opinion. And, increasingly, many in the world are wondering who they can trust: the U.S. or China? And, it is at that point, that we return to the question (and it IS a question) of whether the Chinese government/military/intelligence services can or will control Huawei -- just as, for the rest of the world, the question exists on whether the U.S. government will use U.S. companies to spy on them. It seems that, for most of the world, it is a coin flip on who they can trust.
Huawei's proposal that the world come up with a standard set of security guidelines and enforcement seems to make the most sense.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
Congress can rightfully claim National Security in this case, to eliminate Huawei and ZTE from our telecom infrastructure. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate to that effect.
Interesting that there are legal mechanisms available in the West that Huawei will use to pursue its cause, whereas U.S. based companies would have little to none of those mechanisms available in China.
Exactly right. So long as there is some reasonable alternative justification for the prohibition (other than "because we are punishing this company") then the Bill of Attainder prohibition won't apply. It's not for the Courts to second guess why Congress sets the procurement rules it does--absent a smoking gun.
@Carnegie do you have examples of the cases where SCOTUS "muddled the waters" on this topic? These seems cut and dry based on the plain reading of the Constitution, but I haven't read any cases where SCOTUS addressed this, so perhaps you're right and they have messed this up already.
Edit: The Wikipedia article does a nice job discussing the five (5!) cases where SCOTUS decided that a law was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The key question in this case is whether prohibiting government agencies from purchasing telecommunication equipment from these 2 organization is "punishment" or not. If it's punishment then that's a problem since there wasn't due process and it wasn't conducted by the judiciary. If it's not punishment, it's not a bill of attainder, so no problem.
The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if it was rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.[49] Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.[50]
I don't think the US will have any trouble whatsoever in asserting a nonpunative goal, namely reducing the risk of foreign actors compromising government communications. This hail Mary by Huawei will fail completely and quickly.
That Wikipedia article offers a pretty superficial discussion of those cases. But it points to the muddying of waters that I was referring to. The Supreme Court has focused on different issues when it comes to whether or not something is a bill of attainder - e.g., past conduct versus future conduct, ability to escape from the specified class, punishment versus prevention.
As I indicated previously, whether something is a punishment is indeed a key consideration. But what makes something a punishment? In U.S. v Brown (1965) the Supreme Court offered a pretty expansive understanding of that term, at least as it might be considered with regard to alleged bills of attainder. The Court described it as including actions with preventative purposes, not just those with retributive purposes. I'd point people to Section IV of that opinion, which starts (citations and footnotes omitted):
The Solicitor General argues that § 504 is not a bill of attainder, because the prohibition it imposes does not constitute "punishment." In support of this conclusion, he urges that the statute was enacted for preventive, rather than retributive reasons -- that its aim is not to punish Communists for what they have done in the past, but rather to keep them from positions where they will in the future be able to bring about undesirable events. He relies on American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, which upheld § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of the statute presently before us. In Douds, the Court distinguished Cummings, Garland, and Lovett on the ground that, in those cases "the individuals involved were in fact being punished for past actions, whereas, in this case, they are subject to possible loss of position only because there is substantial ground for the congressional judgment that their beliefs and loyalties will be transformed into future conduct."
This case is not necessarily controlled by Douds. For, to prove its assertion that § 9(h) was preventive, rather than retributive, in purpose, the Court in Douds focused on the fact that members of the Communist Party could escape from the class of persons specified by Congress simply by resigning from the Party:
"Here, the intention is to forestall future dangerous acts; there is no one who may not by a voluntary alteration of the loyalties which impel him to action, become eligible to sign the affidavit. We cannot conclude that this section is a bill of attainder."
Section 504, unlike § 9(h), disqualifies from the holding of union office not only present members of the Communist Party, but also anyone who has, within the past five years, been a member of the Party. However, even if we make the assumption that the five-year provision was inserted not out of desire to visit retribution, but purely out of a belief that failure to include it would lead to pro forma resignations from the Party which would not decrease the threat of political strikes, it still clearly appears that § 504 inflicts "punishment" within the meaning of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It would be archaic to limit the definition of "punishment" to "retribution."
Punishment serves several purposes; retributive, rehabilitative, deterrent -- and preventive. One of the reasons society imprisons those convicted of crimes is to keep them from inflicting future harm, but that does not make imprisonment any the less punishment.
Historical considerations by no means compel restriction of the bill of attainder ban to instances of retribution. A number of English bills of attainder were enacted for preventive purposes -- that is, the legislature made a judgment, undoubtedly based largely on past acts and associations (as § 504 is), that a given person or group was likely to cause trouble (usually, overthrow the government), and therefore inflicted deprivations upon that person or group in order to keep it from bringing about the feared event. It is also clear that many of the early American bills attainting the Tories were passed in order to impede their effectively resisting the Revolution.
"In the progress of the conflict, and particularly in its earliest periods, attainder and confiscation had been resorted to generally, throughout the continent, as a means of war. But it is a fact important to the history of the revolting colonies that the acts prescribing penalties usually offered to the persons against whom they were directed the option of avoiding them by acknowledging their allegiance to the existing governments."
"It was a preventive, not a vindictive, policy. In the same humane spirit, as the contest approached its close, and the necessity of these severities diminished, many of the states passed laws offering pardons to those who had been disfranchised, and restoring them to the enjoyment of their property. . . . "
So, even if the point of the exclusion is to prevent Huawei from doing harm in the future - rather than to punish it for what it's done in the past - that exclusion could be considered a bill of attainder under Brown. Brown and U.S. v Douds (1950) are arguably at odds (and therefore Douds is effectively overruled) on that point. But even under Douds the present action could be considered a bill of attainder because Douds focused on whether someone could remove themselves from the class specified (and excluded) by Congress. Huawei can't really remove itself from being Huawei, and in this case Congress didn't specify a group (e.g. members of the Communist party), it specified a number of entities, to include Huawei.
Again, I'm not suggesting that Huawei will or should win this case. But, based on existing case law which can be taken in different directions (i.e. different aspects of it can be chosen as a focal point), I wouldn't rule out that possibility.
It's one thing for a legislature to say... if an entity poses this risk (perhaps based on past behavior), then it is excluded from doing this. A judicial process can then decide whether the exclusion applies to a given entity. It's another thing for a legislature to say... we've decided, based on its past behavior, that this particular entity poses this risk, therefore we are excluding it from doing this. We come back to the past conduct versus future conduct distinction. There's considerable grey area here.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
Congress can rightfully claim National Security in this case, to eliminate Huawei and ZTE from our telecom infrastructure. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate to that effect.
Interesting that there are legal mechanisms available in the West that Huawei will use to pursue its cause, whereas U.S. based companies would have little to none of those mechanisms available in China.
Congress can claim national security, sure. But would it win based on that argument? Perhaps. But I wouldn't rule out that it wouldn't.
See my post above. The Supreme Court has offered a rather expansive understanding of what constitutes a punishment for bill of attainder purposes. Something meant to prevent future harm, rather than meant as retribution, can be considered a punishment.
As for your last point... sure, we're a different nation with different rules and different senses of propriety. We value, e.g., individual liberty differently. We value limitations on government differently. Regardless of what the people of the respective nations wish for, our governments are effectively constrained to different degrees.
And to be clear, one of the parties bringing this action is a U.S. entity. It may be a subsidiary of a foreign entity. But it is, legally, a U.S. entity.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
The question does come down to "standing" there is also another standard which "jurisdiction." US laws and Constitution only has jurisdiction over the citizens of this country and the court have held that companies are considered a legal person for the purpose of law in the US so they have standing and jurisdiction. The US has no jurisdiction over Huawei unless they are incorporated in the US which they are not since they are a Chinese company so they do not have any protect rights in our country. With that said, and my point above, we have people in our legal system who consider anyone in the world if they choose they are protect by our laws and can do exactly this.
I will give you a good example, today if someone is visiting the US under diplomatic immunity, they can come here and do as they like, break our laws and the US had no recourse but to remove them from the US. As long as they are citizen of another country and diplomat US law has no Jurisdiction over them, as such they can not file any claims against us even is they were somehow "injured" in the US. They can not go to court and sue someone because they felt they were wrong, this is what our complicate laws say, but courts have chosen not to follow the laws. Just look at the ISIS woman who is trying to get back into the US. she is not a citizen and has no standing in our legal system all because her dad was diplomate and the US is using this against her as an example and her dad is now suing since he is a citizen. Problem is his daughter is legally an adult so he really have not standing on her behalf.
Standing and personal jurisdiction are, as you suggest, different considerations. But a few points...
(1) The issue wouldn't be whether a given court has personal jurisdiction over Huawei, it would be whether it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants - i.e., the U.S. and the named officials. A federal court surely does have such personal jurisdiction.
(2) The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens, or only applies within the U.S., is wrong. On the other hand, it doesn't protect everyone anywhere in the world. It depends on the context. But the Constitution, among other things, prohibits the government from doing certain things; it doesn't just prohibit the government from doing certain things to particular people. In other words, not all of the limitations in our Constitution are object-oriented. Further, not all of the protections in our Constitution specify that they apply to citizens, though some do.
(3) One of the entities bringing this action is incorporated in the United States. That's one of the points I way making in the previous post. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. is incorporated in Texas.
(4) If you're referring in your second paragraph to the situation I think you're referring to, the issue isn't that she wouldn't have standing because she isn't a U.S. citizen. Standing doesn't depend on citizenship. We can get further into standing rules if you'd like. But, as I indicated previously, it depends on (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability. If the woman I think you are referring to were her to file an action herself, she may well have standing. She might lose on the merits or lose before reaching them for other reasons. But her not being a citizen would not mean she didn't have standing.
Comments
You're confusing state security with due process. If the US intelligence agencies have reason to believe your knockoff heroes are bad actors, they don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else on a rumors forum. No, they just debrief the executive and legislative branches. It's not an episode of Judge Judy. They aren't going to disclose their evidence or sources or tools just to make some Android astroturfers feel better.
If you accepted that Russia meddled in the US election, despite not receiving a dossier of the evidence, then I fail to see why you demand one delivered to you now. Cognitive dissonance, my friend.
China has been forceful in meddling in elections in Australia, via Chinese diaspora, though also directly, but this has become known to the populations, and controls are in place to reduce, if not mitigate it. Same for New Zealand. Both have bans in place to prevent Huawei 5G telecom equipment sales to carriers, and both are getting considerable pushback diplomatically and via trade "friction".
The U.S. has pledged support of our South Asian allies, but would do well to join the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the U.S. withdrew as a signatory when it was previously the TPP. This would have reduced all signatories trade with China, reducing the leverage of the Chinese Government.
added yet another link;
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-chinas-long-surveillance-arm-thrusts-into-canada
"Within the Canadian media realm there are also growing private reports that Mandarin-language Chinese journalists at various news outlets across this country are being called into meetings with China’s officials, leading some Chinese reporters to ask editors to remove their bylines from stories about the People’s Republic of China and its many overseas investors.
It’s always wise to be wary of superpowers. But China’s actions are cranking suspicion up to new levels. Compared to the flawed United States, which somehow still manages to win grudging admirers around the world, China’s surveillance tactics are making it almost impossible for that country to develop soft power with any appeal at all.
While some observers say many of the people of China are primed for more reform, openness and media freedom, it’s clear the leaders of China have in the past year been going only backwards, intent on more scrutiny and repression."
Throughout his many posts, why do I see Avon B7 as completely brainwashed by Huawei Media, and Chinese Propaganda.
Great, because countries have asked and got no answers and the 'believe us, we know' line doesn't cut it nowadays. That ship sailed long ago.
And if the US doesn't want to get drawn by the media, what was it doing giving a press conference at MWC? If the US is campaigning publicly, I say Huawei has the right to do exactly the same - and it is. From there on in, people and governments will make up their own minds but based on reality and right now, and in the absence of evidence, protectionism is what many are seeing and obviously I see it that way too.
I am not confusing anything and those tweets by Donald Trump make things pretty clear anyway.
It seems Germany has just issued its 5G guidelines and not banned Huawei. I'm awaiting confirmation of this but evidence (or lack of it) will have played a part in their decision, whatever it turns out to be but Germany has already gone on record as saying the US hadn't provided any. Not the scribbles of someone on an internet forum.
Have I mentioned Russia? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
If that was an impersonal 'you', my opinion on Russia is just that, an opinion.
The US/Huawei situation is not the same. Or is the US also trying to impede a Russian company from doing business?
I don't know what the law is, though there are likely laws being generated as we speak. The issue is that social media has a large impact on the electorate by planting false information or amplifying events using social media.
Should whataboutism be the reason that Russia and Chine are given a pass on the same? Absolutely not.
Should China be given a pass on Confucius Centers that are distributing Chinese Propaganda? No,
Should Academia take China's funding for technology that will obviously be transferred? No
You fail to convince, yet again
Here's the fine print tin the 5G guidelines;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/germany-to-require-suppliers-of-5g-networks-be-trustworthy/2019/03/07/ca6b0330-410b-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0281dd5629a2
It isn't about the evidence, or lack thereof, it is about Huawei's connection to China, which you have been unable to acknowledge as an issue.
You should be blaming the CCP for the Authoritarian Government that Huawei exists within, not any Nations that are concerned about their own National Security.
VOA is funded the the U.S. Government, but run by a board on independent Governors;
I posted a couple of links:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Voice-of-America-VOA-a-fair-and-balanced-source-of-information
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-voice-america-radio-free-europe-20181222-story.html
It's my impression that VOA is a very high quality source of news, and is noted for being a great source for learning the English language. It has been exceptionally adept at avoiding control by Political Parties.
Here's an example of current news, an issue of anti-semitism in Congress.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-house-democrats-struggling-over-rebuke-to-lawmaker-for-israel-comments/4817433.html
Evidence is and always has been a key factor in the resistance to US pressure. In the case of Germany, politicians have made this clear. In the case of 5G, and as a result of the guidelines (which I believe haven't been formally published yet), there will be added requirements of which, trustworthiness seems to be one.
I don't dislike China because of it and it has nothing at all to do with Huawei.
It is clear that Trump does not like China and views them as an enemy. The rest of the world -- including most of America -- does not share his opinion. And, increasingly, many in the world are wondering who they can trust: the U.S. or China? And, it is at that point, that we return to the question (and it IS a question) of whether the Chinese government/military/intelligence services can or will control Huawei -- just as, for the rest of the world, the question exists on whether the U.S. government will use U.S. companies to spy on them. It seems that, for most of the world, it is a coin flip on who they can trust.
Huawei's proposal that the world come up with a standard set of security guidelines and enforcement seems to make the most sense.
As I indicated previously, whether something is a punishment is indeed a key consideration. But what makes something a punishment? In U.S. v Brown (1965) the Supreme Court offered a pretty expansive understanding of that term, at least as it might be considered with regard to alleged bills of attainder. The Court described it as including actions with preventative purposes, not just those with retributive purposes. I'd point people to Section IV of that opinion, which starts (citations and footnotes omitted):
So, even if the point of the exclusion is to prevent Huawei from doing harm in the future - rather than to punish it for what it's done in the past - that exclusion could be considered a bill of attainder under Brown. Brown and U.S. v Douds (1950) are arguably at odds (and therefore Douds is effectively overruled) on that point. But even under Douds the present action could be considered a bill of attainder because Douds focused on whether someone could remove themselves from the class specified (and excluded) by Congress. Huawei can't really remove itself from being Huawei, and in this case Congress didn't specify a group (e.g. members of the Communist party), it specified a number of entities, to include Huawei.
Again, I'm not suggesting that Huawei will or should win this case. But, based on existing case law which can be taken in different directions (i.e. different aspects of it can be chosen as a focal point), I wouldn't rule out that possibility.
It's one thing for a legislature to say... if an entity poses this risk (perhaps based on past behavior), then it is excluded from doing this. A judicial process can then decide whether the exclusion applies to a given entity. It's another thing for a legislature to say... we've decided, based on its past behavior, that this particular entity poses this risk, therefore we are excluding it from doing this. We come back to the past conduct versus future conduct distinction. There's considerable grey area here.
See my post above. The Supreme Court has offered a rather expansive understanding of what constitutes a punishment for bill of attainder purposes. Something meant to prevent future harm, rather than meant as retribution, can be considered a punishment.
As for your last point... sure, we're a different nation with different rules and different senses of propriety. We value, e.g., individual liberty differently. We value limitations on government differently. Regardless of what the people of the respective nations wish for, our governments are effectively constrained to different degrees.
And to be clear, one of the parties bringing this action is a U.S. entity. It may be a subsidiary of a foreign entity. But it is, legally, a U.S. entity.
(1) The issue wouldn't be whether a given court has personal jurisdiction over Huawei, it would be whether it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants - i.e., the U.S. and the named officials. A federal court surely does have such personal jurisdiction.
(2) The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens, or only applies within the U.S., is wrong. On the other hand, it doesn't protect everyone anywhere in the world. It depends on the context. But the Constitution, among other things, prohibits the government from doing certain things; it doesn't just prohibit the government from doing certain things to particular people. In other words, not all of the limitations in our Constitution are object-oriented. Further, not all of the protections in our Constitution specify that they apply to citizens, though some do.
(3) One of the entities bringing this action is incorporated in the United States. That's one of the points I way making in the previous post. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. is incorporated in Texas.
(4) If you're referring in your second paragraph to the situation I think you're referring to, the issue isn't that she wouldn't have standing because she isn't a U.S. citizen. Standing doesn't depend on citizenship. We can get further into standing rules if you'd like. But, as I indicated previously, it depends on (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability. If the woman I think you are referring to were her to file an action herself, she may well have standing. She might lose on the merits or lose before reaching them for other reasons. But her not being a citizen would not mean she didn't have standing.