The WTO would cease to exist as a functioning mulitaleral organisation if it started ejecting members for political reasons that have nothing with global trade.
Chinese companies encouraging employees to Buy Huawei products instead of a rival’s products is no different from American companies encouraging their employees to boycott Apple products and buy rival Android products - as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, is reported to have done, recently.
It’s too late. The decades of US research, the millions of hours, creativity, genius, blood, sweat and tears that went into the greatest inventions and technologies ever created have already been stolen and continue to be stolen by the Chinese. They are a communist, moralless nation that does not believe stealing is wrong. They don’t want to do the work themselves - much easier to steal it. Those that steal technology from other countries are heroes in China. The greatest shift of intellectual assets in the history of mankind is happening now. China 2025 is a real threat. Apple get your manufacturing and dependence on Chinese suppliers out of China as fast as possible (if it’s even possible).
Do you mean all the research and American ingenuity used to create "mortgage backed securities" and other investment vehicles that erased billions from people's hard-earned savings? And all the ingenuity of big Pharma that warrants jacking up the price of insulin 10-fold for research that was done 50 years ago?
Couple of my colleagues used to work at Huawei, prior to joining our current firm.
They were working on a product that was essentially a knockoff of a cisco voice product. There were some important bugs to be fixed, and these guys had multiple tech discussions and finalized on a particular approach to fix the issue. The manager (a chinese) agreed and they dispersed for the day. Couple of days later the manager calls the team for a meeting, and tells them to fix it in a different way that he detailed. He tells them, that is the way cisco fixed the same bug in their product !!
this is all the product of american corporate greed. they steal our IP and we do NOTHING because we want make stuff as cheap as possible. we give them our IP just so we can sell to them. we gladly take their money to educate their children in our universities. their goal is to beat us at everything we do best. and what they can't beat us at, they'll steal it. and WE DO NOTHING.
Trump is trying ... but people dont like his hair style or boasting..... you know those attributes are more important than all issues discussed here.. ...
now to get back on track; is it the color of his hair or the way he combs it ?
Be thankful for where you live if you have the freedom to purchase a mass consumer product based on its merits and not risk being fired of have it confiscated for doing so.
It should be noted that apparel companies such as Nike where I live discourage employees from wearing competing brands to work. That seems different from a company totally unrelated to Apple’s business choosing to threaten employees who own Apple devices.
You non-Chinese citizens, wake up. Your true understanding of China is limited and you know to what you can read online. You have to live in place for decades to understand someone's culture. Western world has shot themselves in their foot by allowing China to join WTO without putting vigilance on them of their hidden long term agenda. Without knowing China's ability to withstand pressure and pain and how long, all efforts against will fail, Western world is not German strong willpower people. Their tolerance is pretty low. Soon as stock market went down 20% after very high level, everyone is panic and complaining including Mr. Trump.
If you can not win the war.than don't fight it. Best way to deal with China is to create larger coalition of rest of world and dig heel for years/decade to not import anything from China.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
The WTO would cease to exist as a functioning mulitaleral organisation if it started ejecting members for political reasons that have nothing with global trade.
Chinese companies encouraging employees to Buy Huawei products instead of a rival’s products is no different from American companies encouraging their employees to boycott Apple products and buy rival Android products - as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, is reported to have done, recently.
Flytrap - I am assuming you are part of the Chinese troll army but just in case you are not, there is a big difference between a public company like Facebook and any Chinese company that is forced to do whatever the government says. Show me examples spanning a number of years of of Huawei refusing to hand over user data, or a court siding with a user over the government and your argument may have more credibility. Show me examples of Huawei executives speaking out against the government, taking the 5th on issues, sending lower level staff instead of the CEO etc. If you do find one, I am guessing it only happened once and they suddenly “disappeared” and showed up later in jail for “corruption”.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
I just wanted to add that the FCC grants licenses to these companies, so while privately funded, they are in fact regulated by the U.S. Government. I'm sure that U.S. airlines and Airports would have liked to have more control of security than the DHS will let them, but again, they are government regulated.
Come to think of it, I don't really want our power grid, or water supplies controlled by equipment from our adversaries either. Consider me "overly cautious".
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Are you ignoring my ZTE comment, and the one about Huawei as well? You must be if you thought that's what my post was about.
FWIW there's a whole lot more going on than some silly public display of allegiances. China has replaced Russia as the country most likely to challenge the US as the largest world power and influence broker. AI development, economics, military influence and regional partnerships are effecting US policy towards China and Chinese companies too.
Russia may be working both sides of the fence, but if any country is positioning themselves a a challenger to the US, and thus have become a huge security threat in the eyes of our military and political leaders, it's China.
Avon has a point about the United States using its influence over private US companies as just one of their many avenues taken to blunt China's challenge. It doesn't mean that Chinese companies may not be used by China the same way, if not now then in the near future.
So I get the concerns and if I was the one making the decisions might do choose to tag them as a security risk too. China views some of the US companies the same way. Even if you're unwilling to admit Avon might be right about something, surely you recognize there's a far bigger picture than simply one where Huawei and ZTE are actively undermining other countries. That may or may not be true and actual proof does seem a bit lacking as he's frequently mentioned...
...but yes the potential is there and yes in the current climate they probably should be considered a network security risk as far as the US and its allies are concerned. certainly as long as the each the US and China are struggling be seen as the Big Dog and that's not going to be resolved for a looong time.
Personally I see China as being more of a long-term threat to the US and its policies than Russia ever was. Taking the lead from us on AI alone is a major inroad.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Handsets aren't infrastructure.
'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.
Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.
Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Are you ignoring my ZTE comment, and the one about Huawei as well? You must be you thought that's what my post was about.
FWIW there's a whole lot more going on than some silly public display of allegiances. China has replaced Russia as the country most likely to challenge the US as the largest world power and influence broker. AI development, economics, military influence and regional partnerships are effecting US policy towards China and Chinese companies too.
Russia may be working both sides of the fence, but if any country is positioning themselves a a challenger to the US, and thus have become a huge security threat in the eyes of our military and political leaders, it's China.
I apologize if I misconstrued your comment, but Avon B7 DOES NOT make a valid point wrt to the U.S. Government pressuring private companies. These same companies are licensed frequencies to operate and are heavily regulated by the FCC. They are free to operate within the constraints and guidelines provided by law.
I should note that the "adversary" that I was speaking of is China, just to clarify.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Handsets aren't infrastructure.
'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.
Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.
Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.
Nope, handsets aren't infrastructure, and good thing that all of my posts reference infrastructure as telecom equipment, not handsets.
As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.
Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier.
China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Handsets aren't infrastructure.
'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.
Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.
Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.
Nope, handsets aren't infrastructure, and good thing that all of my posts reference infrastructure as telecom equipment, not handsets.
As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.
Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier.
China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!
My point was if handsets aren't infrastructure, where is the problem with handsets?
Chinese culture accepts surveillance. This is a reality. Even Spanish culture accepts surveillance. We have electronic ID and cameras recording our every move. The difference is that the Chinese take things up a notch. Under many cameras in Spain there is a sign saying members of the public may 'exercise your rights' and providing an address. How exactly am I supposed to actually do that?
Do you believe that the US government has (or had) plans for similar efforts to make mass surveillance a reality?
In the old days, when I was in the government, I met someone from a division tracking 'subversives'. This was pre internet and this person spent all day examining government video recordings of protest marches to detect faces that appeared with unusually high frequency. Very low tech.
Today, I'm sure the same goals are pursued but in a high tech fashion. I'm also convinced Chinese tech is being used. Probably Face++. The only difference is that the term 'subversives' has probably been changed.
On Thursday I will fly to London and I will pass through a fully automated passport control system that will include biometric checks.
Many people in US government 'security' departments would probably love to have Chinese levels of surveillance but know that isn't an option that can be put on the table. The question remains though. Are governments (not limited to the US) willing to push ahead with their surveillance goals in spite of public opinion or legislation?
Is NarusInsight the visible part of deeper surveillance programs? Are those kinds of systems open to misuse?
We need identification. Nowadays that means some form of biometric information. That information needs to be stored somewhere. That is government. There isn't really that much of a gap between the facial recognition techniques used in China and those used elsewhere, at least on a technical level. There differences are in other realms - and complex.
Facial recognition is used on the Barcelona metro system to identify pick pockets. A noble effort. The system isn't automated like it might be in China but the mechanism is the same: constant passenger surveillance and a notification system on PA or from the train driver. Plain clothes police present on trains to coordinate with controllers.
As the system is not automated it is inefficient but I can see government 'selling' the automation as a boom to security. From there it wouldn't take long for public opinion to change.
TBH, I can't imagine a scenario where the Chinese surveillance model doesn't become the norm. The only difference will be the protections tied to it to protect our civil rights. Of course, AI will be part of that future and guess who is setting the pace in that field?
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
He’s smoking Chinese weed. That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.
It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.
Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.
What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies. His point was a valid one IMO.
So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
Handsets aren't infrastructure.
'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.
Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.
Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.
Nope, handsets aren't infrastructure, and good thing that all of my posts reference infrastructure as telecom equipment, not handsets.
As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.
Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier.
China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!
My point was if handsets aren't infrastructure, where is the problem with handsets?
Chinese culture accepts surveillance. This is a reality. Even Spanish culture accepts surveillance. We have electronic ID and cameras recording our every move. The difference is that the Chinese take things up a notch. Under many cameras in Spain there is a sign saying members of the public may 'exercise your rights' and providing an address. How exactly am I supposed to actually do that?
Do you believe that the US government has (or had) plans for similar efforts to make mass surveillance a reality?
In the old days, when I was in the government, I met someone from a division tracking 'subversives'. This was pre internet and this person spent all day examining government video recordings of protest marches to detect faces that appeared with unusually high frequency. Very low tech.
Today, I'm sure the same goals are pursued but in a high tech fashion. I'm also convinced Chinese tech is being used. Probably Face++. The only difference is that the term 'subversives' has probably been changed.
On Thursday I will fly to London and I will pass through a fully automated passport control system that will include biometric checks.
Many people in US government 'security' departments would probably love to have Chinese levels of surveillance but know that isn't an option that can be put on the table. The question remains though. Are governments (not limited to the US) willing to push ahead with their surveillance goals in spite of public opinion or legislation?
Is NarusInsight the visible part of deeper surveillance programs? Are those kinds of systems open to misuse?
We need identification. Nowadays that means some form of biometric information. That information needs to be stored somewhere. That is government. There isn't really that much of a gap between the facial recognition techniques used in China and those used elsewhere, at least on a technical level. There differences are in other realms - and complex.
Facial recognition is used on the Barcelona metro system to identify pick pockets. A noble effort. The system isn't automated like it might be in China but the mechanism is the same: constant passenger surveillance and a notification system on PA or from the train driver. Plain clothes police present on trains to coordinate with controllers.
As the system is not automated it is inefficient but I can see government 'selling' the automation as a boom to security. From there it wouldn't take long for public opinion to change.
TBH, I can't imagine a scenario where the Chinese surveillance model doesn't become the norm. The only difference will be the protections tied to it to protect our civil rights. Of course, AI will be part of that future and guess who is setting the pace in that field?
You may be in love with authoritarianism, but some of us, not so much.
The WTO would cease to exist as a functioning mulitaleral organisation if it started ejecting members for political reasons that have nothing with global trade.
Chinese companies encouraging employees to Buy Huawei products instead of a rival’s products is no different from American companies encouraging their employees to boycott Apple products and buy rival Android products - as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, is reported to have done, recently.
The reason they should be kicked out has everything to do with global trade. IP theft, product dumping, mandatory technology transfer agreements, unfair trade advantages from state-owned firms... where do you want to begin? They are a modernizing and economically successful country built on a foundation of ongoing theft and that’s why they should be taken to the woodshed.
Comments
Couple of my colleagues used to work at Huawei, prior to joining our current firm.
They were working on a product that was essentially a knockoff of a cisco voice product. There were some important bugs to be fixed, and these guys had multiple tech discussions and finalized on a particular approach to fix the issue. The manager (a chinese) agreed and they dispersed for the day. Couple of days later the manager calls the team for a meeting, and tells them to fix it in a different way that he detailed. He tells them, that is the way cisco fixed the same bug in their product !!
now to get back on track; is it the color of his hair or the way he combs it ?
It should be noted that apparel companies such as Nike where I live discourage employees from wearing competing brands to work. That seems different from a company totally unrelated to Apple’s business choosing to threaten employees who own Apple devices.
That’s some typical underhand marketing by Chinese business.
Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.
I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.
I just wanted to add that the FCC grants licenses to these companies, so while privately funded, they are in fact regulated by the U.S. Government. I'm sure that U.S. airlines and Airports would have liked to have more control of security than the DHS will let them, but again, they are government regulated.
Come to think of it, I don't really want our power grid, or water supplies controlled by equipment from our adversaries either. Consider me "overly cautious".
FWIW there's a whole lot more going on than some silly public display of allegiances. China has replaced Russia as the country most likely to challenge the US as the largest world power and influence broker. AI development, economics, military influence and regional partnerships are effecting US policy towards China and Chinese companies too.
Russia may be working both sides of the fence, but if any country is positioning themselves a a challenger to the US, and thus have become a huge security threat in the eyes of our military and political leaders, it's China.
Avon has a point about the United States using its influence over private US companies as just one of their many avenues taken to blunt China's challenge. It doesn't mean that Chinese companies may not be used by China the same way, if not now then in the near future.
So I get the concerns and if I was the one making the decisions might do choose to tag them as a security risk too. China views some of the US companies the same way. Even if you're unwilling to admit Avon might be right about something, surely you recognize there's a far bigger picture than simply one where Huawei and ZTE are actively undermining other countries. That may or may not be true and actual proof does seem a bit lacking as he's frequently mentioned...
...but yes the potential is there and yes in the current climate they probably should be considered a network security risk as far as the US and its allies are concerned. certainly as long as the each the US and China are struggling be seen as the Big Dog and that's not going to be resolved for a looong time.
Personally I see China as being more of a long-term threat to the US and its policies than Russia ever was. Taking the lead from us on AI alone is a major inroad.
'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.
Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.
Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.
I should note that the "adversary" that I was speaking of is China, just to clarify.
As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.
Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier.
China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!
Chinese culture accepts surveillance. This is a reality. Even Spanish culture accepts surveillance. We have electronic ID and cameras recording our every move. The difference is that the Chinese take things up a notch. Under many cameras in Spain there is a sign saying members of the public may 'exercise your rights' and providing an address. How exactly am I supposed to actually do that?
Do you believe that the US government has (or had) plans for similar efforts to make mass surveillance a reality?
In the old days, when I was in the government, I met someone from a division tracking 'subversives'. This was pre internet and this person spent all day examining government video recordings of protest marches to detect faces that appeared with unusually high frequency. Very low tech.
Today, I'm sure the same goals are pursued but in a high tech fashion. I'm also convinced Chinese tech is being used. Probably Face++. The only difference is that the term 'subversives' has probably been changed.
On Thursday I will fly to London and I will pass through a fully automated passport control system that will include biometric checks.
Many people in US government 'security' departments would probably love to have Chinese levels of surveillance but know that isn't an option that can be put on the table. The question remains though. Are governments (not limited to the US) willing to push ahead with their surveillance goals in spite of public opinion or legislation?
Is NarusInsight the visible part of deeper surveillance programs? Are those kinds of systems open to misuse?
We need identification. Nowadays that means some form of biometric information. That information needs to be stored somewhere. That is government. There isn't really that much of a gap between the facial recognition techniques used in China and those used elsewhere, at least on a technical level. There differences are in other realms - and complex.
Facial recognition is used on the Barcelona metro system to identify pick pockets. A noble effort. The system isn't automated like it might be in China but the mechanism is the same: constant passenger surveillance and a notification system on PA or from the train driver. Plain clothes police present on trains to coordinate with controllers.
As the system is not automated it is inefficient but I can see government 'selling' the automation as a boom to security. From there it wouldn't take long for public opinion to change.
TBH, I can't imagine a scenario where the Chinese surveillance model doesn't become the norm. The only difference will be the protections tied to it to protect our civil rights. Of course, AI will be part of that future and guess who is setting the pace in that field?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/05/bt-removing-huawei-equipment-from-parts-of-4g-network