I'm all for more reliable, faster, wider availability. What I really don't need is increased cost for features I don't need or want.
That said, a 5G alternative for my home internet connection would be worth looking at. I think my t-mobile "unlimited" plan throttles at 50GB/mo. I'll need about 20x that for it to be viable.
That said, there is nothing to stop whichever providers are currently supplying US carriers from developing similiar solutions which are almost definitely already well on their way to market.
Also, services like HD 5G mobile gaming are are available from some carriers:
And although network slicing can (and should) be used on 4G networks, it will only come into its own when 5G networks roll out and that is happening now on a large and ever increasing scale.
Nobody that is a consumer will ever see those speeds unless they have MMwave, but as always, Huawei is great at marketing.
Sadly, things are not going Huawei's way in the world, and backlash to China and Huawei continues to grow:
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
"5G may have become a buzzword, but the notion that countries must rush to be first to deploy it is mistaken and reckless—and increases the odds of security breaches. There’s no doubt that 5G is important, promising the high speeds and unparalleled connectivity that are required to unleash the full potential of the “internet of things”—the ever-growing network of web-connected devices—and artificial intelligence. 5G could prove critical to economic competitiveness, but not only will a race to install the system end up backfiring, there is also reason to think twice about the claims of China’s Huawei that it alone can shape our technological future.
Huawei’s marketing—and Chinese government propaganda—has built the impression that it’s either Huawei or no way to 5G. The telecommunications firm declares itself the unparalleled leader in 5G as it attempts to secure commercial partnerships around the world, now boasting more than 50 contracts across some 30 countries. In Europe, Huawei has even launched a campaign urging residents to “Vote for 5G,” as if its 5G technologies were the only way for Europe to achieve a smarter future.
Huawei’s claims to be No. 1 in 5G can be misleading. Huawei is a leader and a powerhouse, but it is not the only top player. And it isn’t clear that the company is winning—at least, not yet. Although Huawei’s technological capabilities shouldn’t be underestimated, there are reasons to look skeptically at its supposed superiority in 5G.
Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition. Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition.
That Huawei has amassed a market share estimated at nearly 30 percent of the global telecom equipment industry reflects its capacity to underbid and undercutcompetitors, not to mention multiple alleged incidents of bribery and corruption. The Chinese firm’s determination to provide cheap services and equipment to capture market share often puts intense pressure on competitors. But it’s not always a fair fight: Huawei’s rise has been enabled by the billions of dollars in support, subsidies, and various benefits it has received from the Chinese government. For instance, Huawei has lines of credit from state-owned banks that reportedly amount to $100 billion"
...
"For all of Huawei’s grandstanding, its competitors are also gaining ground. Huawei’s apparent advantages are hardly unassailable in an industry that is continuing to evolve so rapidly. Those countries and mobile network operators that opt not to work with Huawei, whether out of concern for security or to protect competition, will have other viable options. Nokia has been catching up with Huawei in deals on the ground, Samsung and Ericsson are also receiving new contracts for major 5G projects, and Qualcomm is continuing to demonstrate new inventions in 5G."
There is now an awareness that Europe ‘can no longer rely on vague promises of reform [from Beijing] but needs to develop its own instruments to level the playing field’, ex-EU ambassador to China Dietmar Schweisgut says
Issues like the role of China’s state-owned enterprises and subsidies ‘also need to be addressed’, he says
Man, talk about headwinds for Huawei...
You should re-read the link.
This is without mmWave, using a live commercially deployed network and commercially available 5G phones. The Sunrise 5G gaming platform of course doesn't use mmWave either.
The rest is all politics and tacit admissions that Huawei is leading the way. Of course the word 'alleged' is ever present in the absence of actual proof. Lots of bluster and very little more.
Bring on the competition! Competition is what counts.
Sadly for the U.S, and according to WSJ, U.S companies aren't able to compete due to purely political reasons and are losing billions in revenues (needed for investment into future products) as a result. A result which is seeing those billions pumped into their foreign competitors.
You shouldn't believe that a Huawei test is going to demonstrate normal consumer performance of 5G, and it won't. Just more Huawei marketing.
As for the losses to American component manufacturers, be aware that they will have the remaining market for 5G telecom to compete in, and as far as handsets, Huawei is going to run into problems if they don't support Google services, which plays right into Samsung's advantage.
What?
Who I shouldn't believe is you. These results are obviously where we are heading and supported by the carriers. Sunrise is just one. Other speed milestones have been set in other countries and also verified by the carriers. None of them using mmWave which is what you said was needed to achieve those speeds. Clearly you were wrong because the carriers have verified the speeds. These are NOT lab settings.
If you think U.S companies can simply shrug off multi billion revenue losses by looking elsewhere for business you are seriously missing the point.
Independently of what business they may (or may not) pick up, losing Huawei is lost business whichever way you look at it.
Have you considered the fact that the Huawei Mobile Services Genie is already out of the bottle and its not going back?
Google pleaded with Trump not to do what he did because they know full well what the consequences are. It's too late now though. It won't appear overnight but HarmonyOS/Huawei Mobile Services will develop to become a major challenge to Android/Google Mobile Services.
Trump lit the fuse to the dynamite but he hasn't realised he is still holding it!
You are so enamored with the very first instances of 5G favoring Huawei, that you fail to realize that there are many countries that will encourage actual competition, and that competition is certainly coming from companies other than Huawei.
That said, there is nothing to stop whichever providers are currently supplying US carriers from developing similiar solutions which are almost definitely already well on their way to market.
Also, services like HD 5G mobile gaming are are available from some carriers:
And although network slicing can (and should) be used on 4G networks, it will only come into its own when 5G networks roll out and that is happening now on a large and ever increasing scale.
Nobody that is a consumer will ever see those speeds unless they have MMwave, but as always, Huawei is great at marketing.
Sadly, things are not going Huawei's way in the world, and backlash to China and Huawei continues to grow:
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
"5G may have become a buzzword, but the notion that countries must rush to be first to deploy it is mistaken and reckless—and increases the odds of security breaches. There’s no doubt that 5G is important, promising the high speeds and unparalleled connectivity that are required to unleash the full potential of the “internet of things”—the ever-growing network of web-connected devices—and artificial intelligence. 5G could prove critical to economic competitiveness, but not only will a race to install the system end up backfiring, there is also reason to think twice about the claims of China’s Huawei that it alone can shape our technological future.
Huawei’s marketing—and Chinese government propaganda—has built the impression that it’s either Huawei or no way to 5G. The telecommunications firm declares itself the unparalleled leader in 5G as it attempts to secure commercial partnerships around the world, now boasting more than 50 contracts across some 30 countries. In Europe, Huawei has even launched a campaign urging residents to “Vote for 5G,” as if its 5G technologies were the only way for Europe to achieve a smarter future.
Huawei’s claims to be No. 1 in 5G can be misleading. Huawei is a leader and a powerhouse, but it is not the only top player. And it isn’t clear that the company is winning—at least, not yet. Although Huawei’s technological capabilities shouldn’t be underestimated, there are reasons to look skeptically at its supposed superiority in 5G.
Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition. Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition.
That Huawei has amassed a market share estimated at nearly 30 percent of the global telecom equipment industry reflects its capacity to underbid and undercutcompetitors, not to mention multiple alleged incidents of bribery and corruption. The Chinese firm’s determination to provide cheap services and equipment to capture market share often puts intense pressure on competitors. But it’s not always a fair fight: Huawei’s rise has been enabled by the billions of dollars in support, subsidies, and various benefits it has received from the Chinese government. For instance, Huawei has lines of credit from state-owned banks that reportedly amount to $100 billion"
...
"For all of Huawei’s grandstanding, its competitors are also gaining ground. Huawei’s apparent advantages are hardly unassailable in an industry that is continuing to evolve so rapidly. Those countries and mobile network operators that opt not to work with Huawei, whether out of concern for security or to protect competition, will have other viable options. Nokia has been catching up with Huawei in deals on the ground, Samsung and Ericsson are also receiving new contracts for major 5G projects, and Qualcomm is continuing to demonstrate new inventions in 5G."
There is now an awareness that Europe ‘can no longer rely on vague promises of reform [from Beijing] but needs to develop its own instruments to level the playing field’, ex-EU ambassador to China Dietmar Schweisgut says
Issues like the role of China’s state-owned enterprises and subsidies ‘also need to be addressed’, he says
Man, talk about headwinds for Huawei...
You should re-read the link.
This is without mmWave, using a live commercially deployed network and commercially available 5G phones. The Sunrise 5G gaming platform of course doesn't use mmWave either.
The rest is all politics and tacit admissions that Huawei is leading the way. Of course the word 'alleged' is ever present in the absence of actual proof. Lots of bluster and very little more.
Bring on the competition! Competition is what counts.
Sadly for the U.S, and according to WSJ, U.S companies aren't able to compete due to purely political reasons and are losing billions in revenues (needed for investment into future products) as a result. A result which is seeing those billions pumped into their foreign competitors.
You shouldn't believe that a Huawei test is going to demonstrate normal consumer performance of 5G, and it won't. Just more Huawei marketing.
As for the losses to American component manufacturers, be aware that they will have the remaining market for 5G telecom to compete in, and as far as handsets, Huawei is going to run into problems if they don't support Google services, which plays right into Samsung's advantage.
What?
Who I shouldn't believe is you. These results are obviously where we are heading and supported by the carriers. Sunrise is just one. Other speed milestones have been set in other countries and also verified by the carriers. None of them using mmWave which is what you said was needed to achieve those speeds. Clearly you were wrong because the carriers have verified the speeds. These are NOT lab settings.
If you think U.S companies can simply shrug off multi billion revenue losses by looking elsewhere for business you are seriously missing the point.
Independently of what business they may (or may not) pick up, losing Huawei is lost business whichever way you look at it.
Have you considered the fact that the Huawei Mobile Services Genie is already out of the bottle and its not going back?
Google pleaded with Trump not to do what he did because they know full well what the consequences are. It's too late now though. It won't appear overnight but HarmonyOS/Huawei Mobile Services will develop to become a major challenge to Android/Google Mobile Services.
Trump lit the fuse to the dynamite but he hasn't realised he is still holding it!
You are so enamored with the very first instances of 5G favoring Huawei, that you fail to realize that there are many countries that will encourage actual competition, and that competition is certainly coming from companies other than Huawei.
Unless it's the U.S. or one of the countries intimidated by Trump & Thugs.... Then the world leader in 5G will be absent. But then that's one of the main purposes of his China attacks: eliminate the competition. So much for Free Markets.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
That said, there is nothing to stop whichever providers are currently supplying US carriers from developing similiar solutions which are almost definitely already well on their way to market.
Also, services like HD 5G mobile gaming are are available from some carriers:
And although network slicing can (and should) be used on 4G networks, it will only come into its own when 5G networks roll out and that is happening now on a large and ever increasing scale.
Nobody that is a consumer will ever see those speeds unless they have MMwave, but as always, Huawei is great at marketing.
Sadly, things are not going Huawei's way in the world, and backlash to China and Huawei continues to grow:
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
"5G may have become a buzzword, but the notion that countries must rush to be first to deploy it is mistaken and reckless—and increases the odds of security breaches. There’s no doubt that 5G is important, promising the high speeds and unparalleled connectivity that are required to unleash the full potential of the “internet of things”—the ever-growing network of web-connected devices—and artificial intelligence. 5G could prove critical to economic competitiveness, but not only will a race to install the system end up backfiring, there is also reason to think twice about the claims of China’s Huawei that it alone can shape our technological future.
Huawei’s marketing—and Chinese government propaganda—has built the impression that it’s either Huawei or no way to 5G. The telecommunications firm declares itself the unparalleled leader in 5G as it attempts to secure commercial partnerships around the world, now boasting more than 50 contracts across some 30 countries. In Europe, Huawei has even launched a campaign urging residents to “Vote for 5G,” as if its 5G technologies were the only way for Europe to achieve a smarter future.
Huawei’s claims to be No. 1 in 5G can be misleading. Huawei is a leader and a powerhouse, but it is not the only top player. And it isn’t clear that the company is winning—at least, not yet. Although Huawei’s technological capabilities shouldn’t be underestimated, there are reasons to look skeptically at its supposed superiority in 5G.
Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition. Huawei’s quest for dominance in the global telecommunications industry has involved tactics and practices that are antithetical to fair, healthy competition.
That Huawei has amassed a market share estimated at nearly 30 percent of the global telecom equipment industry reflects its capacity to underbid and undercutcompetitors, not to mention multiple alleged incidents of bribery and corruption. The Chinese firm’s determination to provide cheap services and equipment to capture market share often puts intense pressure on competitors. But it’s not always a fair fight: Huawei’s rise has been enabled by the billions of dollars in support, subsidies, and various benefits it has received from the Chinese government. For instance, Huawei has lines of credit from state-owned banks that reportedly amount to $100 billion"
...
"For all of Huawei’s grandstanding, its competitors are also gaining ground. Huawei’s apparent advantages are hardly unassailable in an industry that is continuing to evolve so rapidly. Those countries and mobile network operators that opt not to work with Huawei, whether out of concern for security or to protect competition, will have other viable options. Nokia has been catching up with Huawei in deals on the ground, Samsung and Ericsson are also receiving new contracts for major 5G projects, and Qualcomm is continuing to demonstrate new inventions in 5G."
There is now an awareness that Europe ‘can no longer rely on vague promises of reform [from Beijing] but needs to develop its own instruments to level the playing field’, ex-EU ambassador to China Dietmar Schweisgut says
Issues like the role of China’s state-owned enterprises and subsidies ‘also need to be addressed’, he says
Man, talk about headwinds for Huawei...
You should re-read the link.
This is without mmWave, using a live commercially deployed network and commercially available 5G phones. The Sunrise 5G gaming platform of course doesn't use mmWave either.
The rest is all politics and tacit admissions that Huawei is leading the way. Of course the word 'alleged' is ever present in the absence of actual proof. Lots of bluster and very little more.
Bring on the competition! Competition is what counts.
Sadly for the U.S, and according to WSJ, U.S companies aren't able to compete due to purely political reasons and are losing billions in revenues (needed for investment into future products) as a result. A result which is seeing those billions pumped into their foreign competitors.
You shouldn't believe that a Huawei test is going to demonstrate normal consumer performance of 5G, and it won't. Just more Huawei marketing.
As for the losses to American component manufacturers, be aware that they will have the remaining market for 5G telecom to compete in, and as far as handsets, Huawei is going to run into problems if they don't support Google services, which plays right into Samsung's advantage.
What?
Who I shouldn't believe is you. These results are obviously where we are heading and supported by the carriers. Sunrise is just one. Other speed milestones have been set in other countries and also verified by the carriers. None of them using mmWave which is what you said was needed to achieve those speeds. Clearly you were wrong because the carriers have verified the speeds. These are NOT lab settings.
If you think U.S companies can simply shrug off multi billion revenue losses by looking elsewhere for business you are seriously missing the point.
Independently of what business they may (or may not) pick up, losing Huawei is lost business whichever way you look at it.
Have you considered the fact that the Huawei Mobile Services Genie is already out of the bottle and its not going back?
Google pleaded with Trump not to do what he did because they know full well what the consequences are. It's too late now though. It won't appear overnight but HarmonyOS/Huawei Mobile Services will develop to become a major challenge to Android/Google Mobile Services.
Trump lit the fuse to the dynamite but he hasn't realised he is still holding it!
You are so enamored with the very first instances of 5G favoring Huawei, that you fail to realize that there are many countries that will encourage actual competition, and that competition is certainly coming from companies other than Huawei.
I am far from enamored and have always vouched for competition.
However, what the U.S government is currently doing is trying to thwart or outright destroy competition from a technological world leader.
If anything, I have consistently stated the obvious and widely accepted reality.
Trump, or anyone, could easily destroy Huawei's business in the blink of an eye. All that is needed is clear cut proof of the accusations.
It really is that simple.
The problem is that, for all the rhetoric and posturing, that proof simply doesn't exist and when sovereign nations have called Trump out on the issue, he has resorted to outright threats and bullying.
Obviously sovereign nations don't take nicely to being treated like that but even on top of that, Trump thinks that throwing tariffs around will in some way allow him to strong arm his will onto people.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy." Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy." Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
EDIT: The link was about Chinese supporters calling Huawei to task for the arrest...
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
LOL.... why is it that you don't complain about online surveillance here in the U.S. -- only in China? Or, why is it that you complain about China but not how we force a foreign country to hold Wanshou as a hostage and political prisoner in Trump's silly trade war?
You sound as hypocritical as Trump. And as credible..
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
LOL.... why is it that you don't complain about online surveillance here in the U.S. -- only in China? Or, why is it that you complain about China but not how we force a foreign country to hold Wanshou as a hostage and political prisoner in Trump's silly trade war?
You sound as hypocritical as Trump. And as credible..
Yet again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the many subjects that I have raised, but do you really think that the noted repressive surveillance state of China is comparable to what we have here in the U.S.?
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
Why should I trust Huawei?
You have more reason to trust Huawei than to trust anyone where the NSA could have its tentacles. Isn't that ironic!
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
Why should I trust Huawei?
You have more reason to trust Huawei than to trust anyone where the NSA could have its tentacles. Isn't that ironic!
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
I've posted enough counterpoints to your support of Huawei. I can't do anything about what will actually happen, nor can you, but as I stated multiple times, Huawei's connection to China has always, and will always, be the primary issue. That China keeps making it worse for Huawei with their actions is obvious.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
LOL.... why is it that you don't complain about online surveillance here in the U.S. -- only in China? Or, why is it that you complain about China but not how we force a foreign country to hold Wanshou as a hostage and political prisoner in Trump's silly trade war?
You sound as hypocritical as Trump. And as credible..
Yet again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the many subjects that I have raised, but do you really think that the noted repressive surveillance state of China is comparable to what we have here in the U.S.?
LOL... China has nothing that compares to the NSA, CIA, FBI, HSA, etc., etc, etc, -- but you keep denigrating China anyway. It exposes your cold war / football game mentality: A blind faith in the belief that, "They are the bad guys, We are the good guys"
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
Why should I trust Huawei?
You have more reason to trust Huawei than to trust anyone where the NSA could have its tentacles. Isn't that ironic!
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
I've posted enough counterpoints to your support of Huawei. I can't do anything about what will actually happen, nor can you, but as I stated multiple times, Huawei's connection to China has always, and will always, be the primary issue. That China keeps making it worse for Huawei with their actions is obvious.
Maybe Huawei should move offshore?
How about Taiwan or Viet Nam!
The belief that Huawei is an arm of the Chinese military is only an issue for those who choose to believe the US. led propaganda effort against Huawei. The rest of the world, living in the real world, thinks its nonsense.
Even those who made the claim have backed off of that claim (after being destroyed) and now simply claim "Well, they might in the future. You never know!"
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
Why should I trust Huawei?
You have more reason to trust Huawei than to trust anyone where the NSA could have its tentacles. Isn't that ironic!
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
I've posted enough counterpoints to your support of Huawei. I can't do anything about what will actually happen, nor can you, but as I stated multiple times, Huawei's connection to China has always, and will always, be the primary issue. That China keeps making it worse for Huawei with their actions is obvious.
Maybe Huawei should move offshore?
How about Taiwan or Viet Nam!
The belief that Huawei is an arm of the Chinese military is only an issue for those who choose to believe the US. led propaganda effort against Huawei. The rest of the world, living in the real world, thinks its nonsense.
Even those who made the claim have backed off of that claim (after being destroyed) and now simply claim "Well, they might in the future. You never know!"
I have never, ever, stated that Huawei is an arm of the People's Liberation Army. That would be inaccurate as Huawei serves the Chinese Government, not just the Army.
Oh, and for the record, we're still the good guys, just not as good as we could be, but for all of our failings, we are still the leader of the Free World. I'm guessing that we will be much better once Trump is gone.
What is China the leader of?
Why, that would have to be Authoritarianism, which you have stated that you are so fond of.
At last, a competent, non-biased analysis of Trump's war with China & Huawei. Here Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and Cyber Command says:
1) This is primarily an economic war.
2) Trump's effort using cold war tactics of containment are bound to failure. 3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
(* Personally I find it remarkable that a country that espouses free markets whines and complains when it gets beat by those same free markets. But, I agree with Rogers that the only way to contain China is to be better at technology (and everything else) than they are. That's how free markets work and that's how the world works. And, that's a win for everybody -- everybody in the U.S. and throughout the world.)
LOL,
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms."
"He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Unlike others, including Rogers, I do not conflate economic competition with National Security. That's a pretty far reach if, for no other reason, than it implies a physical or military threat to the nation -- which is the misconception that Trump has been exploiting and why other nations are calling bull to his claims.
It is instead more appropriate to think of it as two business competitors -- such as how iPhones made Palm Pilots obsolete. Can China make us obsolete? Well, they are scheduled to pass us by as the world's number 1 economy in the near future. But, as Rogers points out: You aren't going to stop that with tariffs and other obstruction.
As I said, I agree with him that you cannot block or obstruct economic competition. The way to counter it is simply to do things better. That's how open markets work -- whether the competition is between football teams, corporations or nations.
China is beating us consistently on two fronts: Technology and (mostly) manufacturing. They are simply better at it than we are. And Rogers points to why: There industry is supported by government as a partnership -- they work together for the betterment of both. But here we have handicapped ourselves by saying only private, for profit corporations can compete and any government help is cheating. The trouble with that is: for-profit corporations can best compete by exploiting China's superiority in tech and manufacturing -- they aren't competing with China, they are using China to help their bottom lines.
A 100 years ago government and industry worked together -- for instance they built railroads and infrastructure together to the betterment of both. Instead of trying to block China with scare tactics and tariffs, we should be trying to make our own businesses more competitive in the world market. It's the only way to long term success.
So, on top of concerns of state supported industry, not to mention National Security concerns, we also have human rights issues with China;
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
Prosecutors released the former employee, Li Hongyuan, for insufficient evidence earlier this year but his plight has turned into a PR nightmare for the Chinese tech giant at a time when the trade war means the company is having to lean more heavily on its domestic market.
Huawei had become a rallying point for patriotism in China as tensions with the United States mounted. Growth in its smartphone business has recently been propped up by Chinese shoppers as sales overseas slow."
"Huawei has lost a huge number of fans because these people now see a different Huawei: a strange monster that has no empathy and has turned into a bully," it added.
Even Meng's plight is now eliciting some negative reactions on the Chinese internet.
In a letter posted online Sunday, Meng detailed the support she had received during her "darkest hour" — including countless internet comments backing her and Huawei — and concluded that "such warmth is the lighthouse that will guide me forward."
"There is a man, similar to your age, also a Chinese citizen, working at the same company as you — he was put behind bars but there was no lighthouse for him," a user named Laonanchai wrote on popular social media platform Zhihu."
You linked to an article but I'm not sure if you actually read it.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei. Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it. The police picked up on the case The government held the ex-employee in prison. The government reviewed the case The government released the ex-employee The government gave him compensation. The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
LOL!
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around. BTW
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
There you go again, confusing China with Huawei.
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
Actually, the U.S. has banned all Chinese surveillance cameras used at any government installation;
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary "vocational training centers," where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
And the students can't leave until they have become just that."
Why should I trust Huawei?
You have more reason to trust Huawei than to trust anyone where the NSA could have its tentacles. Isn't that ironic!
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
I've posted enough counterpoints to your support of Huawei. I can't do anything about what will actually happen, nor can you, but as I stated multiple times, Huawei's connection to China has always, and will always, be the primary issue. That China keeps making it worse for Huawei with their actions is obvious.
Maybe Huawei should move offshore?
How about Taiwan or Viet Nam!
The belief that Huawei is an arm of the Chinese military is only an issue for those who choose to believe the US. led propaganda effort against Huawei. The rest of the world, living in the real world, thinks its nonsense.
Even those who made the claim have backed off of that claim (after being destroyed) and now simply claim "Well, they might in the future. You never know!"
.... Why, that would have to be Authoritarianism, which you have stated that you are so fond of.
No, that's Trump. I just want good, honest government focused on doing the right things.
Comments
That said, a 5G alternative for my home internet connection would be worth looking at. I think my t-mobile "unlimited" plan throttles at 50GB/mo. I'll need about 20x that for it to be viable.
It's a podcast.
You are so enamored with the very first instances of 5G favoring Huawei, that you fail to realize that there are many countries that will encourage actual competition, and that competition is certainly coming from companies other than Huawei.
3) The only way to fight the so called "threat" is by improving U.S. technology through government and industry partnerships to enable the U.S. to become competitive with China on a Global scale. Essentially he is saying that China is passing us by on a technological level and we can't stop them. Or rather, the only way to stop them is to become better at it than than they are -- technological leaders*.
The U.S. can’t use Cold War tactics to engage with China, says former NSA head Michael Rogers
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/michael-rogers-former-nsa-chief-on-china-tech-and-cold-war-tactics.html
However, what the U.S government is currently doing is trying to thwart or outright destroy competition from a technological world leader.
If anything, I have consistently stated the obvious and widely accepted reality.
Trump, or anyone, could easily destroy Huawei's business in the blink of an eye. All that is needed is clear cut proof of the accusations.
It really is that simple.
The problem is that, for all the rhetoric and posturing, that proof simply doesn't exist and when sovereign nations have called Trump out on the issue, he has resorted to outright threats and bullying.
Obviously sovereign nations don't take nicely to being treated like that but even on top of that, Trump thinks that throwing tariffs around will in some way allow him to strong arm his will onto people.
He is very much mistaken.
So, are you now agreeing with me that Huawei and China are threats to our National Security?
- Admiral Michael Rogers, former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, is one of the early voices who described a national security threat from Chinese technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
- Rogers discusses the reality of U.S. competitiveness with China, the threat it poses and how companies can do better to compete with China’s resources on cybersecurity podcast Task Force 7 on Tuesday.
"Rogers said that China’s sponsorship of its companies puts the country on an uneven playing field with its Western competitors, by centralizing funding and providing a cushion that doesn’t exist for U.S. firms.""He said China’s main goal is to achieve 21st century technological dominance, and he explained some of the tactics that are hard to counter, such as IP theft, government subsidies of tech companies, and linking corporate interests to education and government research. He also offered some concrete suggestions on how to counter China’s efforts while maintaining an American business philosophy."
Basically, what Michael Rogers is stating is that we cannot contain China like we did during the Cold War, but that we can compete:
"But he also cautioned that competing with China tit-for-tat likely wouldn’t work for the U.S. Increased government intervention with technology companies simply wouldn’t fly in the U.S., and providing government support for taking competitors’ intellectual property or trade secrets would not be helpful, he said.
Still, the U.S. could vastly improve its public-private partnerships. “You saw the power of that partnership in the space race, the best of government and the best of the private sector.”
Do you even comprehend the link you posted?
Just today, Congress approved a bill calling for sanctions
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/04/us-house-approves-uighur-act-calling-for-sanctions-on-chinas-politburo-xinjiang-muslim
Because the Chinese are imprisoning somewhere around a million ethnic Uyghur, and they got caught at it;
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/27/leaked-documents-expose-the-machinery-of-chinas-prison-camps/
and to top that off, Huawei is facing backlash in China;
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/tech/huawei-employee-detained/index.html
"Huawei is facing a growing backlash on social media in China after new details came to light in the case of a former employee who was arrested and jailed for 251 days following an unproven accusation of blackmail from the company.
First off. Are you telling me that someone was put in jail in China without trial but later saw his case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation!?
Are we talking about the same China, authoritarian China, evil China which, in your view, shows little or no respect for democracy?
Surely, in spite of the slowness involved in this particular case, things can't be as bad as you paint them.
If you dig you will find similar cases in the U.S and Spain too.
A backlash?
Don't you realise that every year Huawei faces a backlash for something or other? Apple too!
Facing a backlash is simply par for the course for big companies. Sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn't.
But, what does the article actually say?
An employee left Huawei.
Huawei suspected illegal activity and reported it.
The police picked up on the case
The government held the ex-employee in prison.
The government reviewed the case
The government released the ex-employee
The government gave him compensation.
The ex-employee has stated he will not take the case further.
Do you agree with that summary?
Once again it looks like you are confusing China with Huawei but far more telling is that you threw it in here just for the sake of it. Nothing to do with 5G, T-Mobile or arguably even Huawei.
EDIT: The link was about Chinese supporters calling Huawei to task for the arrest...
Just pointing out the 251 days that the employee was incarcerated...before he saw the case revised, evaluated and then he was released with compensation.
The fact that he actually had supporters was likely why it was turned around.
BTW
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/asia/china-canada-kovrig-spavor-huawei-intl/index.html
Followed by this yesterday;
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-time-for-trudeau-to-call-china-our-adversary
"Dec. 10 will mark the one-year anniversary since China unjustly imprisoned Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and Canadian businessman Michael Spavor.
That was in retaliation for Canada nine days earlier honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by detaining Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the giant Chinese telecom company, Huawei Technologies, at Vancouver International Airport.
She’s wanted by the Americans on charges of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud intended to violate American sanctions against Iran."
"They have reportedly been subjected to repeated interrogations in rooms where the lights are never turned off.
According to the Globe and Mail, Chinese authorities, apparently out of sheer pettiness and vindictiveness, even confiscated Kovrig’s reading glasses.
While Canadian consular officials are allowed to visit Kovrig and Spavor monthly for 30 minutes, they’ve been denied access to their families and lawyers.
In its escalating campaign to force Canada to free Wanzhou, Chinese officials have accused Canada of “white supremacy” in its diplomatic efforts to get Kovrig and Spavor released and imposed trade bans on key Canadian exports.
They have told Canada to shut up about China’s thuggery while it crushes democracy in Hong Kong, as it previously crushed the people of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of China’s Xinjiang province."
After that, there is the issue of Huawei working directly for the Chinese Government in the Xinjiang province providing surveillance technology;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/11/29/has-huaweis-darkest-secret-just-been-exposed-by-this-new-report/#282ab5c74061
"Now, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has followed up the leaked documents with a report on the main technology providers supporting the region. And Huawei is front and centre. “Huawei’s work in Xinjiang is extensive and includes working directly with the Chinese Government’s public security bureaus in the region,” the report says. “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.”
What you are seeing, is a backlash building up against China, and against Huawei...
You sound as hypocritical as Trump. And as credible..
Yes, Huawei is a supplier to the Chinese government. Does that surprise you? Huawei supplies many governments. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Huawei is even a supplier to the U.S government - and specifically in relation to surveillance. There is a real possibility of that given its dominance in the field. Perhaps not directly but I'm sure someone somewhere in the U.S government is auditing product components in search of the devil (HiSilicon in this case).
Let's not forget how some senators reacted when they realised that Huawei's smart inverters and three phase inverters were present in the U.S.
https://3vq5kdns38e1qxlmvvqmrzsi-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Nielsen-Perry-Letter-Huawei-Solar.pdf-copy.pdf
As a result, Huawei closed its U.S operations in that field. You will not be surprised learn that once again, not a single shred of evidence was ever presented.
So surveillance equipment? Yes. Huawei is a world leader in the field but 'surveillance' is an 'activity', not a product. Huawei can adapt products to cover many scenarios. The products are camera, networking, cloud and AI products. They can be used for all manner of tasks but it is the customer that decides that, not Huawei.
https://www.c4isrnet.com/congress/2019/11/06/are-banned-chinese-cameras-watching-the-us-military/
"WASHINGTON ― Amid news that thousands of banned Chinese-made surveillance devicesare in use across American government installations, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is asking the Pentagon to identify the Chinese gear in use at U.S. military facilities.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper made public Wednesday, Rubio said the Trump administration needs a comprehensive strategy to address the threats posed by foreign-sourced components and subcomponents.
“The Department of Defense must act quickly to identify and remove this equipment as every day that passes only provides our adversaries additional time to infiltrate and exploit our national security networks as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military activities that may be of interest,” Rubio said."
So, Apple is deep in shit for bowing to Russia on maps of the Ukraine and the Crimea, but Huawei gets a pass when they are providing the infrastructure for mass surveillance in Xinjiang?
Of course Huawei should not be involved in that if they are actually concerned about maintaining a separation between them and the Chinese Government. The backlash against Hong Kong and Xinjiang is building rapidly, and Huawei's 5G will be evaluated with consideration of its surveillance business, not differently that Huawei was evaluated for its undersea cable business that they divested.
Huawei has a earned its reputation for spying for the Chinese Government, it isn't just some statement by a Western Government, and that doesn't help Huawei in evaluations of 5G equipment and infrastructure.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/asia/china-xinjiang-leaks-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html
"The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents published by Western media over the last two weeks.
Why should I trust Huawei?
Thanks to Snowden and wikileaks we know how AT&T played its part in surveillance. We know how government agencies interfered with supply chains. We know about Project Shotgiant. etc
While we (and you) know all that very well, nobody has ever put anything on the table that holds water on Huawei. Your posts are chock full of 'anonymous', 'alleged', 'unsubstantiated' etc That boils down to nothing from you but even at an official, judicial level, the U.S government has had to steep so low as to open old, settled court cases, just to have something. Anything! It's wearing thin and Trump is his own worst enemy. We know this isn't really about national security. We have always known this. It's about technological influence (power) and money. We know this because Trump tweeted it all in real time!
National Security Risk? Your president is the biggest national security risk and sadly I am not joking. I am deadly serious.
Do I also need to remind you again of what a German minister said recently on 'trust' and reasons for banning Huawei? After all, you had five opportunities to tackle his observation in another thread but failed to do so.
Trump has become increasingly frustrated by seeing his 'easy to win' trade war has been anything but easy and his attack on Huawei backfired with terrible results for U.S tech companies and U.S revenues. One the one hand he wants to correct a trade imbalance but on the other he is directly responsible for 11 billion dollars of foreign purchases not going to the U.S.
His government also seems utterly lost. This is the latest installment of evidence of that:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-huawei/huawei-urging-suppliers-to-break-the-law-by-moving-offshore-ross-idUSKBN1Y72O4
Perhaps, on the inside, Trump believes the 'sanctions' are U.N sanctions.
Now, ask yourself. Would T-Mobile's 5G offering be better and cheaper for them if they had access to Huawei equipment? Would users see faster speeds than they might if their handsets were connecting to Huawei base stations?
Maybe Huawei should move offshore?
How about Taiwan or Viet Nam!
Oh, and for the record, we're still the good guys, just not as good as we could be, but for all of our failings, we are still the leader of the Free World. I'm guessing that we will be much better once Trump is gone.
What is China the leader of?
Why, that would have to be Authoritarianism, which you have stated that you are so fond of.