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?
Driving west on the A4/M4 out of central London last night, every one of the electronic billboards was promoting the Mate 20. Many had the words
"The Mate 20... What the iPhone XS should have been."
'nuff said I think.
No more than Apple went after Microsoft with their Mac vs. PC ads. There’s nothing particularly nefarious about that advertising practice alone. Apple was the first trillion dollar company. They have a target on their back. No surprise there.
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.
For that matter, Apple is not the US either...
But nobody ever said it was.
If the Chinese security agencies turned around and said Cisco had direct ties to the US government and provided no evidence ( only fears and suspicions) and pushed that line around the world, no doubt the US government would be up in arms. If they put pressure on Chinese retailers to not carry Apple products (on the same suspicions) where would Apple be?
Huawei has sold 200 million handsets in 2018 without access to the second largest handset market in the world. Apple has access to every market. A boycott in China is unlikely to have a major impact all by itself.
An escalation of the current situation would have a probable huge impact on Apple and possibly spark an economic downturn all around.
The Canadian arrest has provoked a boycott by some companies but at a higher level it has provoked a lot of irritation. The scaremongering by the US government to foreign governments is increasing that irritation and not only in China.
As for Meng, there are a lot of behind the scenes observations that come to mind:
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
While Huawei has certainly run into a crapload of issues the past several months it's not all bad news.
They still managed to have a pretty darn good year with (claiming) 200 million smartphones shipped this year including 65 million Nova series, 16 million in the P20 series, and 5 million Mate 20's which looks better than it might if you consider those have only been available for two months. They did OK despite the challenges.
IMO 2019 might be even more challenging tho, not only for Huawei but for every other smartphone maker. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number of companies with negative numbers YOY, and Huawei might be one of them. Much of that might depend on how Chinese buyers look at Apple next year, an aspirational brand or yesterday's products, and whether/how much European consumers buy into the Huawei security concerns of their politicians.
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.
For that matter, Apple is not the US either...
But nobody ever said it was.
If the Chinese security agencies turned around and said Cisco had direct ties to the US government and provided no evidence ( only fears and suspicions) and pushed that line around the world, no doubt the US government would be up in arms. If they put pressure on Chinese retailers to not carry Apple products (on the same suspicions) where would Apple be?
Huawei has sold 200 million handsets in 2018 without access to the second largest handset market in the world. Apple has access to every market. A boycott in China is unlikely to have a major impact all by itself.
An escalation of the current situation would have a probable huge impact on Apple and possibly spark an economic downturn all around.
The Canadian arrest has provoked a boycott by some companies but at a higher level it has provoked a lot of irritation. The scaremongering by the US government to foreign governments is increasing that irritation and not only in China.
As for Meng, there are a lot of behind the scenes observations that come to mind:
While Huawei has certainly run into a crapload of issues the past several months it's not all bad news.
They still managed to have a pretty darn good year with (claiming) 200 million smartphones shipped this year including 65 million Nova series, 16 million in the P20 series, and 5 million Mate 20's which looks better than it might if you consider those have only been available for two months. They did OK despite the challenges.
IMO 2019 might be even more challenging tho, not only for Huawei but for every other smartphone maker. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number of companies with negative numbers YOY, and Huawei might be one of them. Much of that might depend on how Chinese buyers look at Apple next year, an aspirational brand or yesterday's products, and whether/how much European consumers buy into the Huawei security concerns of their politicians.
I'm in agreement. Huawei will be hitting headwinds which will slow its unit rate of growth, primarily from a newly energized Samsung, and of course, the rest of the Chinese OEM's competing in a nominally "flat" market.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Sure, whatever.
I'll ignore the Communist Party Members within Huawei, the private company, in a one party state, and the very equipment that Huawei provides to buildout the Chinese Police State.
Still, I can't ignore the excitement in one of your previous posts talking about Chinese surveillance technology.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Sure, whatever.
I'll ignore the Communist Party Members within the Huawei, the private company, in a one party state, and the very equipment that Huawei provides to buildout the Chinese Police State.
Still, I can't ignore the excitement in one of your previous posts talking about Chinese surveillance technology.
There is no excitement, simply an observation of reality and where we are heading. The surveillance part is already happening. Take a walk around London. No need to visit China.
The difference is in the protections enshrined in law (which is still WIP) but the hardware and surveillance is already happening. I very much doubt even you would contest that things are unlikely to get better with regards to surveillance in the future. I am against big brother surveillance. I am even against parents using technology to delve into the private lives of their teenage children.
Some examples in addition to the ones already mentioned:
Car parks and toll stations record your licence plate and your face.
Cash transactions over 2,999€ have to be documented with full ID.
Every year I have to pass over a lot of private information to my bank, including my ID, passport etc to comply with government anti laundering laws.
The tax office cross references lots of information that isn't declared by me. So for example, if I were renting an apartment, even though I should declare that information, the government already has it. The tie ins grow every year.
I cannot purchase anything by credit card from outside the EU without VAT being applied automatically.
Would people complain about facial recognition being used at government infrastructure (from museums to public transport)? Especially if it is sold to them as a convenience.
As for Huawei and the ruling party, how many one-on-ones has Tim Cook had with Donald Trump?
I am beginning to wish that Apple never bothered with this market. In a way, I envy Google and Facebook, which are effectively barred from competing in China.
Google isn't barred, it just has to play by the Chinese Governments rules. Same for Facebook.
Wow. A difference without a distinction.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Of course there’s a distinction. Google is barred from doing business in China, they have thus far chosen not to. But that may be changing as they’ve been toying with a search app for China.
Not anymore. Project Dragonfly didn't pass muster with Google's Privacy team (yes they have one). So no current plans for nor further development of a Google Search product in China
As I said, they are not barred from doing so, which was the distinction being made. As for choosing to do so, I said that "may" be changing and they've been "toying" with such a thing. There was a lot of push back, including from staff. But that doesn't mean they're barred or may not revisit.
Good one about the Privacy Team! Too bad they were sleeping on the job during the recent too-generous-API-access stories.
100% agree.
No idea tho who in Google discovered the issues with Google+ so it could have been within the Privacy Team.
A proper privacy team would be conducting API design review and audits prior to go-live. If they cared. Which they don’t.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Sure, whatever.
I'll ignore the Communist Party Members within the Huawei, the private company, in a one party state, and the very equipment that Huawei provides to buildout the Chinese Police State.
Still, I can't ignore the excitement in one of your previous posts talking about Chinese surveillance technology.
There is no excitement, simply an observation of reality and where we are heading. The surveillance part is already happening. Take a walk around London. No need to visit China.
The difference is in the protections enshrined in law (which is still WIP) but the hardware and surveillance is already happening. I very much doubt even you would contest that things are unlikely to get better with regards to surveillance in the future. I am against big brother surveillance. I am even against parents using technology to delve into the private lives of their teenage children.
Some examples in addition to the ones already mentioned:
Car parks and toll stations record your licence plate and your face.
Cash transactions over 2,999€ have to be documented with full ID.
Every year I have to pass over a lot of private information to my bank, including my ID, passport etc to comply with government anti laundering laws.
The tax office cross references lots of information that isn't declared by me. So for example, if I were renting an apartment, even though I should declare that information, the government already has it. The tie ins grow every year.
I cannot purchase anything by credit card from outside the EU without VAT being applied automatically.
Would people complain about facial recognition being used at government infrastructure (from museums to public transport)? Especially if it is sold to them as a convenience.
As for Huawei and the ruling party, how many one-on-ones has Tim Cook had with Donald Trump?
Since the U.S. is a multi-party system, with an elected head of government, your question isn't even close to comparable to the single party, President for Life, autocratic government that China operates under. It's just a throwaway, as you are well aware.
In the U.S., Tech companies often provide strong leadership in human rights and privacy. often dissenting from the edicts of the Government, and often "lobby" Congress and the Senate on matters of importance to customers, the company, and the country.
I can't imagine that Huawei could even consider dissent from the Chinese Government, which is why I consider Huawei a security problem for the Free World.
Please though, continue your cheerleading for Huawei.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Again, since you ignored it — not according to US congressman briefed by intelligence agencies, who I reckon are more reliable and trustworthy than some knockoff cheerleader on a rumors site. The senator on BBC said your knockoff shop is controlled by China. If we are to trust US intel when they say Russia meddles, I don’t know why we should doubt them on China. Intelligence agencies don’t work for Trump and are adversarial to his administration.
What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Again, since you ignored it — not according to US congressman briefed by intelligence agencies, who I reckon are more reliable and trustworthy than some knockoff cheerleader on a rumors site. The senator on BBC said your knockoff shop is controlled by China. If we are to trust US intel when they say Russia meddles, I don’t know why we should doubt them on China. Intelligence agencies don’t work for Trump and are adversarial to his administration.
What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific.
Briefed on: 'suspicions and fears'.
It has been repeated over and over, if Huawei were found to be guilty of anything untoward, their business would collapse like a house of cards. Overnight. It would be the end. Forever.
The Germans have stated, more or less publicly, that evidence needs to be produced. So far, clearly that hasn't been forthcoming or Germany would put a ban in place.
The same would apply to all countries but Huawei has signed more 5G contracts than anyone else and has already shipped over 10,000 base stations.
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Again, since you ignored it — not according to US congressman briefed by intelligence agencies, who I reckon are more reliable and trustworthy than some knockoff cheerleader on a rumors site. The senator on BBC said your knockoff shop is controlled by China. If we are to trust US intel when they say Russia meddles, I don’t know why we should doubt them on China. Intelligence agencies don’t work for Trump and are adversarial to his administration.
What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific.
Briefed on: 'suspicions and fears'.
It has been repeated over and over, if Huawei were found to be guilty of anything untoward, their business would collapse like a house of cards. Overnight. It would be the end. Forever.
The Germans have stated, more or less publicly, that evidence needs to be produced. So far, clearly that hasn't been forthcoming or Germany would put a ban in place.
The same would apply to all countries but Huawei has signed more 5G contracts than anyone else and has already shipped over 10,000 base stations.
The Germans appear to be reevaluating Huawei 5G, and Frances Orange is a no:
I'm thinking that the West is less inclined to trust the Chinese Autocracy than it was when mercantilism was in full bloom only a few years ago, but more to the point, China flexing its muscles in the South China Seas, among other expansions, is a warning about even more future trade friction.
I am beginning to wish that Apple never bothered with this market. In a way, I envy Google and Facebook, which are effectively barred from competing in China.
Google isn't barred, it just has to play by the Chinese Governments rules. Same for Facebook.
Wow. A difference without a distinction.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Of course there’s a distinction. Google is barred from doing business in China, they have thus far chosen not to. But that may be changing as they’ve been toying with a search app for China.
Not anymore. Project Dragonfly didn't pass muster with Google's Privacy team (yes they have one). So no current plans for nor further development of a Google Search product in China
As I said, they are not barred from doing so, which was the distinction being made. As for choosing to do so, I said that "may" be changing and they've been "toying" with such a thing. There was a lot of push back, including from staff. But that doesn't mean they're barred or may not revisit.
Good one about the Privacy Team! Too bad they were sleeping on the job during the recent too-generous-API-access stories.
100% agree.
No idea tho who in Google discovered the issues with Google+ so it could have been within the Privacy Team.
A proper privacy team would be conducting API design review and audits prior to go-live. If they cared. Which they don’t.
Hmmm, so if Apple misses something in iOS, unintentionally breaking something or opening a security hole, then it's proof Apple doesn't care either, nor has proper software testing teams or does that just apply to not-Apple stuff?
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.
Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
Again, since you ignored it — not according to US congressman briefed by intelligence agencies, who I reckon are more reliable and trustworthy than some knockoff cheerleader on a rumors site. The senator on BBC said your knockoff shop is controlled by China. If we are to trust US intel when they say Russia meddles, I don’t know why we should doubt them on China. Intelligence agencies don’t work for Trump and are adversarial to his administration.
What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific.
Briefed on: 'suspicions and fears'.
It has been repeated over and over, if Huawei were found to be guilty of anything untoward, their business would collapse like a house of cards. Overnight. It would be the end. Forever.
The Germans have stated, more or less publicly, that evidence needs to be produced. So far, clearly that hasn't been forthcoming or Germany would put a ban in place.
The same would apply to all countries but Huawei has signed more 5G contracts than anyone else and has already shipped over 10,000 base stations.
The Germans appear to be reevaluating Huawei 5G, and Frances Orange is a no:
I'm thinking that the West is less inclined to trust the Chinese Autocracy than it was when mercantilism was in full bloom only a few years ago, but more to the point, China flexing its muscles in the South China Seas, among other expansions, is a warning about even more future trade friction.
Not 'the Germans', Deutsche Telecom, the same Deutchse Telecom that just committed (via T-Mobile) to Huawei 5G in Poland:
Of course, this (taken from your link) is pretty much open to a second reading:
"The Deutsche Telekom review comes as U.S. regulators scrutinize the proposed $26 billion takeover by its T-Mobile US (TMUS.O) unit of Sprint Corp (S.N), which is controlled by Japan’s Softbank (9434.T)."
Comments
https://www.ft.com/content/8fa0ad72-0510-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3
If the Chinese security agencies turned around and said Cisco had direct ties to the US government and provided no evidence ( only fears and suspicions) and pushed that line around the world, no doubt the US government would be up in arms. If they put pressure on Chinese retailers to not carry Apple products (on the same suspicions) where would Apple be?
Huawei has sold 200 million handsets in 2018 without access to the second largest handset market in the world. Apple has access to every market. A boycott in China is unlikely to have a major impact all by itself.
An escalation of the current situation would have a probable huge impact on Apple and possibly spark an economic downturn all around.
The Canadian arrest has provoked a boycott by some companies but at a higher level it has provoked a lot of irritation. The scaremongering by the US government to foreign governments is increasing that irritation and not only in China.
As for Meng, there are a lot of behind the scenes observations that come to mind:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/14/stephen-roach-asks-why-us-singled-out-huawei-for-sanctions-violations.html
However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.
They still managed to have a pretty darn good year with (claiming) 200 million smartphones shipped this year including 65 million Nova series, 16 million in the P20 series, and 5 million Mate 20's which looks better than it might if you consider those have only been available for two months. They did OK despite the challenges.
IMO 2019 might be even more challenging tho, not only for Huawei but for every other smartphone maker. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number of companies with negative numbers YOY, and Huawei might be one of them. Much of that might depend on how Chinese buyers look at Apple next year, an aspirational brand or yesterday's products, and whether/how much European consumers buy into the Huawei security concerns of their politicians.
Totally agree!
This has nothing to do with U.S. laws or U.S. security and everything to do with political vendettas and strong-arm tactics.
This is embarrassing. We keep finding new lows to sink to...
Sure, whatever.
I'll ignore the Communist Party Members within Huawei, the private company, in a one party state, and the very equipment that Huawei provides to buildout the Chinese Police State.
Still, I can't ignore the excitement in one of your previous posts talking about Chinese surveillance technology.
The difference is in the protections enshrined in law (which is still WIP) but the hardware and surveillance is already happening. I very much doubt even you would contest that things are unlikely to get better with regards to surveillance in the future. I am against big brother surveillance. I am even against parents using technology to delve into the private lives of their teenage children.
Some examples in addition to the ones already mentioned:
Car parks and toll stations record your licence plate and your face.
Cash transactions over 2,999€ have to be documented with full ID.
Every year I have to pass over a lot of private information to my bank, including my ID, passport etc to comply with government anti laundering laws.
The tax office cross references lots of information that isn't declared by me. So for example, if I were renting an apartment, even though I should declare that information, the government already has it. The tie ins grow every year.
I cannot purchase anything by credit card from outside the EU without VAT being applied automatically.
Would people complain about facial recognition being used at government infrastructure (from museums to public transport)? Especially if it is sold to them as a convenience.
As for Huawei and the ruling party, how many one-on-ones has Tim Cook had with Donald Trump?
In the U.S., Tech companies often provide strong leadership in human rights and privacy. often dissenting from the edicts of the Government, and often "lobby" Congress and the Senate on matters of importance to customers, the company, and the country.
I can't imagine that Huawei could even consider dissent from the Chinese Government, which is why I consider Huawei a security problem for the Free World.
Please though, continue your cheerleading for Huawei.
What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific.
It has been repeated over and over, if Huawei were found to be guilty of anything untoward, their business would collapse like a house of cards. Overnight. It would be the end. Forever.
The Germans have stated, more or less publicly, that evidence needs to be produced. So far, clearly that hasn't been forthcoming or Germany would put a ban in place.
The same would apply to all countries but Huawei has signed more 5G contracts than anyone else and has already shipped over 10,000 base stations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-europe-germany/deutsche-telekom-reviews-huawei-ties-orange-says-no-on-5g-idUSKBN1OD0G7
I'm thinking that the West is less inclined to trust the Chinese Autocracy than it was when mercantilism was in full bloom only a few years ago, but more to the point, China flexing its muscles in the South China Seas, among other expansions, is a warning about even more future trade friction.
Silliness...
Of course, this (taken from your link) is pretty much open to a second reading:
As for Germany:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/12/germany-okay-with-huawei-building-infrastructure.html