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.
No, briefed by the same US intelligence angencies that briefed Obama and congress on Russian meddling, and recently on the crown prince murdering that journalist. Again — if their intel is trustworthy then, why isn’t it now? Because it’s something you don’t want to believe. That makes it personal for you, where it isn’t for them.
You provide no counter-intelligence or evidence. You have nothing, no reason to be believed.
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?
Silliness...
Nice whataboutism, dude. Apple isn’t the one with a notorious track record of disregarding privacy and user privacy preferences, time and time again. It’s a pattern with Google. Apple’s pattern? Making devices thinner.
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?
Silliness...
Nice whataboutism, dude. Apple isn’t the one with a notorious track record of disregarding privacy and user privacy preferences, time and time again. It’s a pattern with Google. Apple’s pattern? Making devices thinner. In the past several updates it's quite often breaking things.
Nice "avoid the question at all cost" dude....
As far as whataboutism wasn't it you doing the "whatabout Google" dance with your China search engine distraction in the first place in a thread discussing Apple and Huawei and NOT Google? I'll go back and look.
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.
No, briefed by the same US intelligence angencies that briefed Obama and congress on Russian meddling, and recently on the crown prince murdering that journalist. Again — if their intel is trustworthy then, why isn’t it now? Because it’s something you don’t want to believe. That makes it personal for you, where it isn’t for them.
You provide no counter-intelligence or evidence. You have nothing, no reason to be believed.
If there is evidence. Present it. If not publicly then privately and definitely to Huawei. If there is evidence, ban Huawei phones outright in the US.
The phones haven't been banned nor has evidence been provided. If it had, bans would have been put in place already. The Germans have said they have nothing to justify a ban as no proof has been provided or discovered.
As for intel, well we all know how the NSA likes to operate (thanks to Snowden) so why not ban US interference in countries where it has no business interfering? Or are the rules different for the US?
As I have said many times, you may point to a tech power struggle, protectionism etc but not security. No other teleco on the planet is subject to the levels of scrutiny Huawei is subjected to and in 30 years of global operations it's record has been pretty good.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
All governments operate above the law at times. I think we can accept that happens.
The longest serving resident in Guantanamo will probably die in prison without ever being charged or tried.
But private enterprise mustn't be lumped in with government without proof to support it.
Huawei is considered a national champion and flag bearer for progress abroad by the Chinese government and citizens alike. That is why the US acted in the first place and the Chinese acted as they have.
Until proof is presented, the claims do not justify the actions taken by the US government.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
Things sometimes take unexpected swings, both positively and negatively. I don't know where things are headed.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
Things sometimes take unexpected swings, both positively and negatively. I don't know where things are headed.
Pretty obviously, you don't follow what is happening militarily in China, or more specifically, in the South China Seas.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
Things sometimes take unexpected swings, both positively and negatively. I don't know where things are headed.
Pretty obviously, you don't follow what is happening militarily in China, or more specifically, in the South China Seas.
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
Things sometimes take unexpected swings, both positively and negatively. I don't know where things are headed.
Pretty obviously, you don't follow what is happening militarily in China, or more specifically, in the South China Seas.
I follow what comes my way but not really enough to be able to state that a new cold war is on the way.
You're happilly able to state unequivocally that China is terrific, at least benign, nothing to worry about, and that Western Democracies have nothing at all to fear wrt security of their telecom infrastructure. Four of the Five eyes countries border the Pacific Ocean, and that is where any future conflict with China will start.
There have been enough incidents this year alone between the U.S. military and the PLAN to cause serious concerns, and it is certainly escalating.
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.
No, briefed by the same US intelligence angencies that briefed Obama and congress on Russian meddling, and recently on the crown prince murdering that journalist. Again — if their intel is trustworthy then, why isn’t it now? Because it’s something you don’t want to believe. That makes it personal for you, where it isn’t for them.
You provide no counter-intelligence or evidence. You have nothing, no reason to be believed.
If there is evidence. Present it. If not publicly then privately and definitely to Huawei. If there is evidence, ban Huawei phones outright in the US.
The phones haven't been banned nor has evidence been provided. If it had, bans would have been put in place already. The Germans have said they have nothing to justify a ban as no proof has been provided or discovered.
As for intel, well we all know how the NSA likes to operate (thanks to Snowden) so why not ban US interference in countries where it has no business interfering? Or are the rules different for the US?
As I have said many times, you may point to a tech power struggle, protectionism etc but not security. No other teleco on the planet is subject to the levels of scrutiny Huawei is subjected to and in 30 years of global operations it's record has been pretty good.
You need someone on this forum to present evidence that’s China is a dictatorship that’s ruthlessly enforces it’s will and forced companies to do what they want? Get real man!!
I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.
The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.
If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.
The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.
I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens?
China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.
Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.
"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.
For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.
There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.
"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.
"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference."
In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Huawei is not China.
"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."
Fixed.
Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.
One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.
Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China. But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH
Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment to accommodate wide-spread network info scooping the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff. What are you smoking?
In China.
Huawei claims out of China, things are different.
As for doing what you are told, forget laws. When governments want something they will do what they can to get it. Often in spite of laws. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Just about ANY government. Some may be considered worse than others but that is often a question of which side of the fence you are on.
No government is immune to this.
As for denying. Why not? Isn't the onus on someone backing up their claims with evidence first?
Huawei operates in China as their main location. It is quite clear even from the reaction of the Chinese govt on the arrest of H highranking employees.
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
It appears that the honeymoon with mercantilist China is over. Now, we're looking at a new Cold War between Western Democracies and Communist China.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
Things sometimes take unexpected swings, both positively and negatively. I don't know where things are headed.
Pretty obviously, you don't follow what is happening militarily in China, or more specifically, in the South China Seas.
I follow what comes my way but not really enough to be able to state that a new cold war is on the way.
You're happilly able to state unequivocally that China is terrific, at least benign, nothing to worry about, and that Western Democracies have nothing at all to fear wrt security of their telecom infrastructure. Four of the Five eyes countries border the Pacific Ocean, and that is where any future conflict with China will start.
There have been enough incidents this year alone between the U.S. military and the PLAN to cause serious concerns, and it is certainly escalating.
I haven't really spoken about the Chinese government beyond highlighting the obvious from a factual perspective. I definitely haven't said it is 'terrific' or even 'benign'.
I've tried to keep things at least in line with the Huawei ramifications even when politics has come into it.
The reality is that until evidence is presented, everything on the Huawei front boils down to fear, suspicion, and protectionism.
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?
I’m talking about manufacturing not Wall Street. I’m shocked you defend a country where slave workers are paid pennies a day and regularly commit suicide. A country that forces their citizens to kill their unborn children to keep population down. A country that poisons baby food! A country that makes counterfeit pharmaceuticals? At least you can trust the insulin in the US is actually insulin.
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.
Putin is also elected. So are a number of other dictators.
Do Not Take Our Democracy For Granted! It too is under attack. "There's more than one way to skin a democracy..."
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.
So, this is not a senate panel who has been briefed, but A senator? I would take that as a probable at best -- there are some in there who, if they told me the sun rises in the east, I would get up early to check.
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.
No, briefed by the same US intelligence angencies that briefed Obama and congress on Russian meddling, and recently on the crown prince murdering that journalist. Again — if their intel is trustworthy then, why isn’t it now? Because it’s something you don’t want to believe. That makes it personal for you, where it isn’t for them.
You provide no counter-intelligence or evidence. You have nothing, no reason to be believed.
So far, our intelligence services have remained fairly impartial and apolitical. Not so much for certain senators and congressman who have been bought & paid for and whose loyalty is not to their country.
They're boycotting Apple but Apple has nothing to do with anything Huawei. Apple did not order the arrest, Trump did. He's causing a lot of big business a lot of headaches right now.
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?
Silliness...
Nice whataboutism, dude. Apple isn’t the one with a notorious track record of disregarding privacy and user privacy preferences, time and time again. It’s a pattern with Google. Apple’s pattern? Making devices thinner. In the past several updates it's quite often breaking things.
Nice "avoid the question at all cost" dude....
As far as whataboutism wasn't it you doing the "whatabout Google" dance with your China search engine distraction in the first place in a thread discussing Apple and Huawei and NOT Google? I'll go back and look.
EDIT: Why yes it was Mr Kettle.
You’re not making any sense. First, you deployed your whataboutism again when Google is threatened. Same old nonsense. I don’t need to answer your whataboutism, but I did anyway, pointing out that Apple doesn’t have a history of disregarding user privacy and wishes thus it’s less of a concern.
As for Google and China search, re-read th posts — I never brought up Google and China, dur. Somebody else did, referring them as being “barred” from entering China, and I corrected them, as there is absolutely nothing barring Google from entering China and in fact they’ve been toying with it recently.
Comments
You provide no counter-intelligence or evidence. You have nothing, no reason to be believed.
Nice whataboutism, dude. Apple isn’t the one with a notorious track record of disregarding privacy and user privacy preferences, time and time again. It’s a pattern with Google. Apple’s pattern? Making devices thinner.
As far as whataboutism wasn't it you doing the "whatabout Google" dance with your China search engine distraction in the first place in a thread discussing Apple and Huawei and NOT Google? I'll go back and look.
EDIT: Why yes it was Mr Kettle.
The phones haven't been banned nor has evidence been provided. If it had, bans would have been put in place already. The Germans have said they have nothing to justify a ban as no proof has been provided or discovered.
As for intel, well we all know how the NSA likes to operate (thanks to Snowden) so why not ban US interference in countries where it has no business interfering? Or are the rules different for the US?
As I have said many times, you may point to a tech power struggle, protectionism etc but not security. No other teleco on the planet is subject to the levels of scrutiny Huawei is subjected to and in 30 years of global operations it's record has been pretty good.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4783402/huawei-executive-5g-canada-spying/
But the meddling at government level persists:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/26/18156514/huawei-redskins-nfl-wifi-deal-blocked-government
And, you are going for another take with the same defense....
While I agree with you on that every govt might attempt something like that in theory, depending on the country and the principles in that particular country, the results will be different. Try killing political diccidents in china and selling their organs illegally. No problem. Google respective articles on that topic yourself, if you will. Try the same shit in the US? Fail. The fact that all govts might abuse power, does not mean they do, or that they do that to the same extent.
Sure, they can deny all they want, but the reaction of the Chinese govt to the arrest shows quite clearly that the connections between H and the Chinese govt go far beyond just simple business-govt connectins. That + the fact that China is spending enormous resources on stealing IP, makes it impossible to actually create a plausible deniability case here. Sorry.
What a couple of years and a President for Life can do.
The longest serving resident in Guantanamo will probably die in prison without ever being charged or tried.
But private enterprise mustn't be lumped in with government without proof to support it.
Huawei is considered a national champion and flag bearer for progress abroad by the Chinese government and citizens alike. That is why the US acted in the first place and the Chinese acted as they have.
Until proof is presented, the claims do not justify the actions taken by the US government.
Here's an example link;
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinese-military-official-we-should-be-ready-to-take-over-taiwan/news-story/58b8ff6e0d9f335354a71c1edbce63ee
There have been enough incidents this year alone between the U.S. military and the PLAN to cause serious concerns, and it is certainly escalating.
I've tried to keep things at least in line with the Huawei ramifications even when politics has come into it.
The reality is that until evidence is presented, everything on the Huawei front boils down to fear, suspicion, and protectionism.
Do Not Take Our Democracy For Granted! It too is under attack.
"There's more than one way to skin a democracy..."
I would take that as a probable at best -- there are some in there who, if they told me the sun rises in the east, I would get up early to check.
As for Google and China search, re-read th posts — I never brought up Google and China, dur. Somebody else did, referring them as being “barred” from entering China, and I corrected them, as there is absolutely nothing barring Google from entering China and in fact they’ve been toying with it recently.
Try again.