"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
If Trump was trying to block Ericson or Nokia with a propaganda campaign like he is with Huawei -- and impairing the rollout of modern technology, we would be talking about them too.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
If Trump was trying to block Ericson or Nokia with a propaganda campaign like he is with Huawei -- and impairing the rollout of modern technology, we would be talking about them too.
Uhm, those are European technologies, and European's have values that are in line with ours, ie, democracies vs single party autocracies. Their societies and corporations are much more transparent than any in China, so we really don't have as much risk associated with European technology, who we are allied with since the end of WWII, nor with our allies in Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific.
Now it may be that today Trump will say something mean about the EU, and sure enough he did, but tomorrow, it will be over and the people in various governments will be back patching things up. Either way, the U.S. is almost certainly going with Samsung, Nokia, and Ericsson for its 5G infrastructure, and none at all of Huawei.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
Just so I'm clear... 5G is going to be critical by the end of 2020, even though the full roll out is expected to take several years. You claim any phone without 5G capabilities will be obsolete by the end of the year yet you can't identify a single case where 5G is necessary or provides any benefit over 4G. You want your phone to have the latest technology, but only want to get a new phone every 5 or 6 years.
Got it.
Mark Twain was right when he talked about arguing...
No, I didn't say a non-5G phone would be obsolete in 2019. But nice strawman.
Others may feel differently, but if I was given a choice between dropping a grand on a modern 5G capable phone versus an obsolete 4G one, I will take 5G even if it pisses Trump off.
Actually, you did.
Only in that imaginary world of yours -- where yesterday's technology is the way of the future
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
If Trump was trying to block Ericson or Nokia with a propaganda campaign like he is with Huawei -- and impairing the rollout of modern technology, we would be talking about them too.
Uhm, those are European technologies, and European's have values that are in line with ours, ie, democracies vs single party autocracies. Their societies and corporations are much more transparent than any in China, so we really don't have as much risk associated with European technology, who we are allied with since the end of WWII, nor with our allies in Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific.
Now it may be that today Trump will say something mean about the EU, and sure enough he did, but tomorrow, it will be over and the people in various governments will be back patching things up. Either way, the U.S. is almost certainly going with Samsung, Nokia, and Ericsson for its 5G infrastructure, and none at all of Huawei.
A single party autocracy is exactly what Trump is trying to establish here -- his newly appointed AG just announced he's going to investigate U.S. intelligence agencies for investigating Trump - which essentially makes him Trump's own personal little SS. So, it doesn't carry much weight when he criticizes others for (supposedly) already doing what he's trying to do.
And, if yoru criteria is openes -- then let's compare Huawei to Apple or Amazon
But, none of that is relevant because Trump's allegation -- the only one any other country will bother listening to is: "China uses Huawei to spy on other countries". But, as has been pointed out, when he is asked for proof of that claim, he has none. He might have the power to block them here -- but all that proves is that he has the power to block them here.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
Calling bull is simply calling bull. Nothing more.
Just so I'm clear... 5G is going to be critical by the end of 2020, even though the full roll out is expected to take several years. You claim any phone without 5G capabilities will be obsolete by the end of the year yet you can't identify a single case where 5G is necessary or provides any benefit over 4G. You want your phone to have the latest technology, but only want to get a new phone every 5 or 6 years.
Got it.
Mark Twain was right when he talked about arguing...
No, I didn't say a non-5G phone would be obsolete in 2019. But nice strawman.
Others may feel differently, but if I was given a choice between dropping a grand on a modern 5G capable phone versus an obsolete 4G one, I will take 5G even if it pisses Trump off.
Actually, you did.
Only in that imaginary world of yours -- where yesterday's technology is the way of the future
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
This shows how confused you are on this subject.
1. Huawei is the single most scrutinised ICT company on the planet - bar none. Its opens up its inner workings to governments that require it. It is under constant review. No other ICT does the same. Would Cisco agree to that?
2. Huawei has long stated that supply chain protections should be in place but that they should be industry certified and applicable to ALL ICT manufacturers. This would mean creating new governance and was discussed in detail at MWC2019.
3. Currently almost all ICT manufacturing is carried out in China and is open to the exact same risks. Every company involved is open to the exact same risks.
4. Being the most scrutinised company makes Huawei a good candidate for compliance on any new regulations that come into play but compliance takes time given the complexity of the situation. Huawei stated - months ago - that it would take between 3 and 5 years to reach full compliance. It committed more than 2 Billion pounds as an initial investment in that goal.
5. Only Huawei is in a position to cater to mass deployment of highly efficient equipment (which is also cheaper) now.
6. EU telcos have made it crystal clear to EU governments that they count on Huawei and a ban (direct or indirect) would cost them (and government) billions.
7. The EU needs to take into account trade relations with China. It is doing just that.
8. The US has managed the Huawei issue very poorly and it is plain to see that what really worries the US has little to do with security but seeing China overtaking it in key technologies and gaining influence as a result. Bullying nations has really irritated a lot of EU governments. No doubt some non-EU governments too.
I understand what is happening here very, very well but no one knows for sure how things will play out. For that we have to wait and see.
This is not the airline industry where companies prefer to standardise one company as much as possible.
Telecommunications is mixed by nature. Eliminating Huawei equipment from the US offers NO real improvement on security. Data will probably end up flowing over Huawei infrastructure at some point and it is ridiculous to think that that attempts to breach security would in some way would decrease if Huawei didn't exist.
Anyone who thinks like that is a fool and there senators who think like that. That is worrying.
On data. Huawei complies with the strict EU law. User data never leaves the EU.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
This shows how confused you are on this subject.
1. Huawei is the single most scrutinised ICT company on the planet - bar none. Its opens up its inner workings to governments that require it. It is under constant review. No other ICT does the same. Would Cisco agree to that?
2. Huawei has long stated that supply chain protections should be in place but that they should be industry certified and applicable to ALL ICT manufacturers. This would mean creating new governance and was discussed in detail at MWC2019.
3. Currently almost all ICT manufacturing is carried out in China and is open to the exact same risks. Every company involved is open to the exact same risks.
4. Being the most scrutinised company makes Huawei a good candidate for compliance on any new regulations that come into play but compliance takes time given the complexity of the situation. Huawei stated - months ago - that it would take between 3 and 5 years to reach full compliance. It committed more than 2 Billion pounds as an initial investment in that goal.
5. Only Huawei is in a position to cater to mass deployment of highly efficient equipment (which is also cheaper) now.
6. EU telcos have made it crystal clear to EU governments that they count on Huawei and a ban (direct or indirect) would cost them (and government) billions.
7. The EU needs to take into account trade relations with China. It is doing just that.
8. The US has managed the Huawei issue very poorly and it is plain to see that what really worries the US has little to do with security but seeing China overtaking it in key technologies and gaining influence as a result. Bullying nations has really irritated a lot of EU governments. No doubt some non-EU governments too.
I understand what is happening here very, very well but no one knows for sure how things will play out. For that we have to wait and see.
This is not the airline industry where companies prefer to standardise one company as much as possible.
Telecommunications is mixed by nature. Eliminating Huawei equipment from the US offers NO real improvement on security. Data will probably end up flowing over Huawei infrastructure at some point and it is ridiculous to think that that attempts to breach security would in some way would decrease if Huawei didn't exist.
Anyone who thinks like that is a fool and there senators who think like that. That is worrying.
On data. Huawei complies with the strict EU law. User data never leaves the EU.
You can believe what you want, but even the EU is aware of the risks of Huawei infrastructure. This isn't just the U.S. that is concerned, but yeah, the U.S. is pushing a position of zero Huawei tolerance.
Did you read my link above about Western companies working with the PLA, inadvertently or not? That is unacceptable, and also bolsters my point that Huawei is as well closely linked with the CCP, Chinese Military, and Chinese Government. You can provide no proof otherwise.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
Lol... while the world is absolutely suspect of Huawei’s credibility In the security realm ... they want to sell to the The Biggest Ani-Huawei brand, Apple ...lol
Why would any liberal democracy trust in a company like Huawei so well entrenched in the CCP.
Buy Samsung, Nokia and Ericsson.
Do you think anyone trusts anyone else?
Huawei is the top communications backbone infrastructure manufacturer - worldwide.
That's a lot of countries. The only thing that has changed is a campaign by the US government to try a prevent Chinese communications technology leapfrogging US efforts and gaining tech influence.
In a word, protectionism.
Much of the rest of the world is basically saying 'tough luck'. They don't really care about who has telecommunications dominance unless it is them, and it isn't. They care about products and cost.
17 hours ago Donald Trump told the Spanish Prime Minister to ban Huawei. He was swiftly rebuffed and Pedro Sánchez made it clear that that wasn't going to happen.
Huawei is a couple of years ahead of the game in 5G. It would cost governments BILLIONS to change tack on Huawei at such a late stage. And, in spite of repeated requests, no evidence supporting the US claims has ever been provided. Not even to, erm, 'allies' who the US is spying on anyway! We know this for various reasons, not least Edward Snowden.
A few years ago you were bragging how the E.U. was going to beat the US in AI. Now it’s Huawei. The reality is really smart folks prefer to move to countries where both freedom and the ability to make decent money without being taxed to death. That doesn’t describe either China or the E.U. Folks in the E.U. make less and are taxed more and at the end of the day that results in a brain drain that is positive for the US. Same for China except the tax is on thoughts.
Living and working in EU (in Sweden, with about as high taxes as they get) I can tell you that, no, all the smart people are not leaving for Silicon Valley. In fact, to get back on topic, most of the technology needed for 5G is developed here. Ericsson, together with Nokia and Huawei, holds a lot of the patents used.
Comments
Now it may be that today Trump will say something mean about the EU, and sure enough he did, but tomorrow, it will be over and the people in various governments will be back patching things up. Either way, the U.S. is almost certainly going with Samsung, Nokia, and Ericsson for its 5G infrastructure, and none at all of Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
And, if yoru criteria is openes -- then let's compare Huawei to Apple or Amazon
But, none of that is relevant because Trump's allegation -- the only one any other country will bother listening to is: "China uses Huawei to spy on other countries". But, as has been pointed out, when he is asked for proof of that claim, he has none. He might have the power to block them here -- but all that proves is that he has the power to block them here.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/11/washington-tries-a-softer-approach-in-anti-huawei-campaign/
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems 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,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-chinese-militarys-exploitation-of-western-tech-firms/
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
1. Huawei is the single most scrutinised ICT company on the planet - bar none. Its opens up its inner workings to governments that require it. It is under constant review. No other ICT does the same. Would Cisco agree to that?
2. Huawei has long stated that supply chain protections should be in place but that they should be industry certified and applicable to ALL ICT manufacturers. This would mean creating new governance and was discussed in detail at MWC2019.
3. Currently almost all ICT manufacturing is carried out in China and is open to the exact same risks. Every company involved is open to the exact same risks.
4. Being the most scrutinised company makes Huawei a good candidate for compliance on any new regulations that come into play but compliance takes time given the complexity of the situation. Huawei stated - months ago - that it would take between 3 and 5 years to reach full compliance. It committed more than 2 Billion pounds as an initial investment in that goal.
5. Only Huawei is in a position to cater to mass deployment of highly efficient equipment (which is also cheaper) now.
6. EU telcos have made it crystal clear to EU governments that they count on Huawei and a ban (direct or indirect) would cost them (and government) billions.
7. The EU needs to take into account trade relations with China. It is doing just that.
8. The US has managed the Huawei issue very poorly and it is plain to see that what really worries the US has little to do with security but seeing China overtaking it in key technologies and gaining influence as a result. Bullying nations has really irritated a lot of EU governments. No doubt some non-EU governments too.
I understand what is happening here very, very well but no one knows for sure how things will play out. For that we have to wait and see.
This is not the airline industry where companies prefer to standardise one company as much as possible.
Telecommunications is mixed by nature. Eliminating Huawei equipment from the US offers NO real improvement on security. Data will probably end up flowing over Huawei infrastructure at some point and it is ridiculous to think that that attempts to breach security would in some way would decrease if Huawei didn't exist.
Anyone who thinks like that is a fool and there senators who think like that. That is worrying.
On data. Huawei complies with the strict EU law. User data never leaves the EU.
Did you read my link above about Western companies working with the PLA, inadvertently or not? That is unacceptable, and also bolsters my point that Huawei is as well closely linked with the CCP, Chinese Military, and Chinese Government. You can provide no proof otherwise.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-tn-huawei-5g-trade-war/
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
https://www.axios.com/report-australian-intelligence-know-huawei-1541285886-42f1eb64-98de-422f-9686-4174e41ef37e.html
I look at the facts, and I do not have confidence in Huawei for telecom infrastructure. The risks are too high.
You are not having faith in a company that is providing more inspection into its product than any other in the same field.
You consider that company a riskier proposal to others which don't provide nearly as much access to code.
And you speak of facts?
Thanks but no thanks.
Because it had access to the code.
Now ask yourself the same question of the competition. You don't know the answer to that one, do you? But you have faith in them all the same.
On top of that, the UK will see how progress is made with Huawei's efforts.
If you took a look into Cisco's core code, would you be surprised at what you saw?
There's a chance we might see a Huawei 5G car later this month. No doubt you wouldn't have faith in that either. ;-)