"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
"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.
Don't you find it odd that Trump's America welcomes the country who attacked us yet throws propaganda, fear and hatred at the country who has, since the time of Nixon, worked with us?
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 Huawei and Qualcomm, holds the parents used.
I will add that Huawei's imaging R&D centre is also in the Nordic Countries (Finland in this case). Lots of smart folks there too. Some from Nokia. Spain has a booming industry for micro satellites btw. Smart people everywhere 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.
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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push 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.
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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
... You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
...
Yes, that is the enormous hole in his argument: That we can't trust Huawei because we can't trust ANY Chinese company because they are all controlled by some (according to him) authoritarian government.
Yet he is happy to buy his Chinese made iPhone and other paraphenalia.
Yes, like all political rhetoric, it sounds convincing but then rings very hollow when examined critically.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
"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.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
added, interesting article on why American Companies wouldn't do much about Chinese hacking;
Comments
https://technode.com/2019/04/02/discussing-huawei-in-a-chinese-coffee-shop/
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-its-official-china-is-a-threat-to-canadas-national-security
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition?CMP=share_btn_tw
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/27/armistice-centenary-indian-troops-testimony-sacrifice-british-library
Sound familiar to what you are referring to?
Pure abuse. Like in China.
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
As for individual freedoms:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/13/saifullah-uzair-paracha-guantanamo-bay-al-qaida-war-on-terror
Is Steven Avery a killer?
The death penalty?
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-5g-network.html
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
http://theconversation.com/huawei-or-the-highway-the-rising-costs-of-new-zealands-relationship-with-china-111909
and I'll repost this;
https://ab.co/2U3U1KD
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Yet he is happy to buy his Chinese made iPhone and other paraphenalia.
Yes, like all political rhetoric, it sounds convincing but then rings very hollow when examined critically.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/26/emmanuel-macron-meets-chinese-leader-in-attempt-to-strengthen-ties
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
added, interesting article on why American Companies wouldn't do much about Chinese hacking;
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s-businesses-turned-a-blind-eye