It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen.
Especially when it’s all the heads of six intelligence agencies, operating in unison.
The same agencies that said Russia meddled in the election and are no friends to the administration. Their findings were valid then, but now they aren’t — for the Chinese Cheer Squad, anyway.
Cognitive dissonance, much?
I suggest you re-read the article you linked to and pay special attention to the quotes.
There is NOTHING but fear, worry, concern etc.
Nothing solid. ZERO.
Six intelligence agencies. SIX!
And all they came up with was 'we recommend people don't use Huawei equipment' - just in case!
If they had anything they would ban Huawei phones outright. That hasn't happened and everyone knows why.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
Ever heard about the Red Troll Army? They are hoards of workers behind the Wall being paid to try and sway public opinion. It's a Communist propaganda machine that is pretty easy to spot on discussion boards
the particular time frame of the hacking: most operations took place during China business hours. The hackers also used servers located in China, and the command and control PCs probed by the researchers all ran Chinese language settings.
It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage.
The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen.
iPhone user here and American. Due process should not be taken lightly or reasoned away for anyone. Democratic rights are inviolable. I strongly disagree with any actions that dilute them in any way, but particularly not on the word of spies in a highly politicized context.
Understand that Huawei is more than a consumer handset company. Think Cisco and Ericsson. They make the backbone telecoms and network gear as well. The US Govt does not want the US or it’s allies to use Huawei where they can gain control of sensitive public (utility) and government/military networks. Imagine what gaining control of a power grid could do. Second, ever wonder how a company like Huawei could get so much traction so fast in a very technical and scientific industry? Well the government does not have IP theft on the agenda for nothing. The Chinese have very ambitious plans to project power and Huawei is one tool in their arsenal gain intelligence and control of potential adversary networks.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
The Supreme Court has muddied the waters somewhat when it comes to Bill of Attainder jurisprudence. So I'm not sure whether Huawei can win on that issue, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Congress can make rules and provide punishments for violating them, but determinations with regard to particular violations generally have to be made through a judicial process. Congress can't, e.g., say... John Doe stole from previous government employees so we're going to deny him Social Security benefits. It likely can't even say... John Doe stole from previous government employees so he's ineligible for a job with the federal government. A court would have to make the determination - while respecting John Doe's due process rights - that he was guilty of stealing from previous government employees.
As I suggested, the waters have been muddied somewhat by a line of Supreme Court decisions which focused on different (or focused differently on the) issues. But some key considerations are (1) is the congressional action being challenged a punishment and (2) is the reason for that punishment past actions or possible future actions? Specificity is also an issue, but the specificity is, I think, clear in this case. The law itself refers to Huawei and ZTE (along with a few other companies) rather than a group of possible actors who may have done something (where such determination with regard to specific actors would be left to a judicial process).
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
Ah! So its a done deal in your view?
You already know the outcome of cases that haven't been heard.
I suggest you come in, take a seat and at least listen to what the other side is (or is going to say) before calling others bullshitters or passing your own premature verdict.
There seems to be a lot you haven't read about and, in spite of your blustering, no real substantial evidence has yet to appear with regards to the legal proceedings that were filed yesterday.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
What I am saying is crystal clear. The US can try to do what it feels necessary within its own borders but when it 'goes on tour' with the sole purpose of 'urging' other countries to follow suit with its ideas and then switches to threats (literally) when those countries ask for evidence of the claims, governments begin to get irritated as the US has been caught doing exactly what it is warning against.
Probably worse as the US got caught spying on its allies. Obama had to apologise to Merkel remember.
The irritation grows when you realise that security isn't even the big issue here.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
Congress can rightfully claim National Security in this case, to eliminate Huawei and ZTE from our telecom infrastructure. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate to that effect.
Interesting that there are legal mechanisms available in the West that Huawei will use to pursue its cause, whereas U.S. based companies would have little to none of those mechanisms available in China.
Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.
Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.
I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.
Everything you post here is total bullshit, but this really takes the cake.
A company that so clearly committed fraud to hide its violation of Iran sanctions that the US government--and Canada--risked international blowback to prosecute those crimes is suddenly innocent because some AI troll account has stood on a soapbox and announced that "it says it obeys the laws!"
Huawei is a project of Communist Party members. It's hard to see how one could extract this massive, barely profitable state enterprise from the PRC. It sure couldn't operate on its own.
It's also well known that China is gunning at owning technology markets and will spare no expense to dump products at a loss until it owns the global means of production. that's been evident since the 90s.
Ah! So its a done deal in your view?
You already know the outcome of cases that haven't been heard.
I suggest you come in, take a seat and at least listen to what the other side is (or is going to say) before calling others bullshitters or passing your own premature verdict.
There seems to be a lot you haven't read about and, in spite of your blustering, no real substantial evidence has yet to appear with regards to the legal proceedings that were filed yesterday.
You are blind to the intents and ambitions of China, hence why you see no National Security issue with Chinese Telecom equipment in the West. Your inability to see that Huawei has strong connections with the CCP has impaired your arguments. More to the point, Huawei has already been implicated in spying, even if those cares have not gone to court in the respective countries that it occurred.
What are they hoping to achieve here? Even if they win no government agencies are going to purchase their equipment.
They don't have any real illusions about the US government purchasing their stuff. Their aim is twofold:
1. From a purely Huawei company perspective, they want to put up a fight so their European and other customers around the world don't follow suit. If the US narrative wins out, they are in big trouble worldwide.
2. From the perspective of the Chinese government, which make no mistake has a heavy hand in how Huawei and ZTE do business, they want to try and force the US to reveal exactly what they know about their efforts to put back doors in their equipment. Most of the details of this are classified Top Secret. They're hoping through a lawsuit to gain a little more insight into exactly what we know and how we know it.
Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds. And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.
We shall see, however.
What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
Congress can rightfully claim National Security in this case, to eliminate Huawei and ZTE from our telecom infrastructure. Bills have already been introduced in the Senate to that effect.
Interesting that there are legal mechanisms available in the West that Huawei will use to pursue its cause, whereas U.S. based companies would have little to none of those mechanisms available in China.
Exactly right. So long as there is some reasonable alternative justification for the prohibition (other than "because we are punishing this company") then the Bill of Attainder prohibition won't apply. It's not for the Courts to second guess why Congress sets the procurement rules it does--absent a smoking gun.
@Carnegie do you have examples of the cases where SCOTUS "muddled the waters" on this topic? These seems cut and dry based on the plain reading of the Constitution, but I haven't read any cases where SCOTUS addressed this, so perhaps you're right and they have messed this up already.
Edit: The Wikipedia article does a nice job discussing the five (5!) cases where SCOTUS decided that a law was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The key question in this case is whether prohibiting government agencies from purchasing telecommunication equipment from these 2 organization is "punishment" or not. If it's punishment then that's a problem since there wasn't due process and it wasn't conducted by the judiciary. If it's not punishment, it's not a bill of attainder, so no problem.
The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if it was rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.[49] Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.[50]
I don't think the US will have any trouble whatsoever in asserting a nonpunative goal, namely reducing the risk of foreign actors compromising government communications. This hail Mary by Huawei will fail completely and quickly.
In my times you would be kicked out rather than allow yourself to sue if you are not qualified to bid for government contract. In Europe you would have to be ISO9000 certified in entire process and provide detailed documentation sometimes. It could be so painful that you would think twice if you wanted to sell to any government. That is not commercial enterprise, but GOVERNMENT. Different rules apply. You could try and sue as much you wanted and every case would be dismissed. So what's next? Suing military that they decided not to take your technology solution because you did not provide enough reputational evidence? Right... Just provide components for review and be happy if they are taken if you really need that contract.
You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself.
What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
What I am saying is crystal clear. The US can try to do what it feels necessary within its own borders but when it 'goes on tour' with the sole purpose of 'urging' other countries to follow suit with its ideas and then switches to threats (literally) when those countries ask for evidence of the claims, governments begin to get irritated as the US has been caught doing exactly what it is warning against.
Probably worse as the US got caught spying on its allies. Obama had to apologise to Merkel remember.
The irritation grows when you realise that security isn't even the big issue here.
You have little concept of how the various National Security Alliances of Western Democracies have, so far, safe guarded the global economy that you as an individual EU citizen greatly benefit from. China's ambitions are already creating friction points in trade routes in South Asia, and have occupied and militarized a number of literal sandbars and islands in the South China Sea, and even now, China has in place agreements for a naval base in Cambodia. All of this leading to China's superpower status, that as an authoritarian government, should at least have you aware of the consequences of the West not defending its interests.
China already has the second largest blue water navy, after the U.S, and it's rapid growth in tonnage, if not quality, and with the aggressive verbiage of the CCP, it is expected that there will be continued escalation of "incidences" that will in a few year, likely move to live fire and a quick escalation to conflict. The West certainly doesn't want to rely on Chinese Telecom equipment in that scenario, and while the worst case of a "kill switch" is unlikely, there will be continued cyberwarfare that will attempt to do the same thing; shut down the West's communications systems to create crisis.
My take: Huawei is years ahead of US manufacturers in 5G backbone equipment. See Intel’s recent “by 2022 the USA will be ahead of Asia in 5G”. Implication: until then Asia (Huawei, Samsung) is ahead.
Remember the Broadcom attempted takeover of Qualcomm? Didn’t happen: govt didn’t want Qualcomm’s 5G IP getting into foreign hands.
To me the govt is fighting a rearguard action in order to give time to US manufacturers to catch up. Will it work? Do we want it to work?
Is this purely a battle between making the world safe for the NSA to spy on everyone vs making the world safe for the PLA to spy on everyone?
They aren't actually ahead in terms of technology. They're just good enough and significantly cheaper. Partly because they steal IP from non-Chinese firms to get up to speed.
Comments
There is NOTHING but fear, worry, concern etc.
Nothing solid. ZERO.
Six intelligence agencies. SIX!
And all they came up with was 'we recommend people don't use Huawei equipment' - just in case!
If they had anything they would ban Huawei phones outright. That hasn't happened and everyone knows why.
For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.
In the Navy, you can sail the 7 seas! In the Navy, you'll get hacked by the Chinese!
www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/05/chinas_navy_hacking/
“…
the particular time frame of the hacking: most operations took place during China business hours. The hackers also used servers located in China, and the command and control PCs probed by the researchers all ran Chinese language settings.
…”
We shall see, however.
As I suggested, the waters have been muddied somewhat by a line of Supreme Court decisions which focused on different (or focused differently on the) issues. But some key considerations are (1) is the congressional action being challenged a punishment and (2) is the reason for that punishment past actions or possible future actions? Specificity is also an issue, but the specificity is, I think, clear in this case. The law itself refers to Huawei and ZTE (along with a few other companies) rather than a group of possible actors who may have done something (where such determination with regard to specific actors would be left to a judicial process).
Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.
As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.
Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.
Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.
You already know the outcome of cases that haven't been heard.
I suggest you come in, take a seat and at least listen to what the other side is (or is going to say) before calling others bullshitters or passing your own premature verdict.
There seems to be a lot you haven't read about and, in spite of your blustering, no real substantial evidence has yet to appear with regards to the legal proceedings that were filed yesterday.
Probably worse as the US got caught spying on its allies. Obama had to apologise to Merkel remember.
The irritation grows when you realise that security isn't even the big issue here.
Interesting that there are legal mechanisms available in the West that Huawei will use to pursue its cause, whereas U.S. based companies would have little to none of those mechanisms available in China.
You are blind to the intents and ambitions of China, hence why you see no National Security issue with Chinese Telecom equipment in the West. Your inability to see that Huawei has strong connections with the CCP has impaired your arguments. More to the point, Huawei has already been implicated in spying, even if those cares have not gone to court in the respective countries that it occurred.
I have previously posted links for all of that.
1. From a purely Huawei company perspective, they want to put up a fight so their European and other customers around the world don't follow suit. If the US narrative wins out, they are in big trouble worldwide.
2. From the perspective of the Chinese government, which make no mistake has a heavy hand in how Huawei and ZTE do business, they want to try and force the US to reveal exactly what they know about their efforts to put back doors in their equipment. Most of the details of this are classified Top Secret. They're hoping through a lawsuit to gain a little more insight into exactly what we know and how we know it.
@Carnegie do you have examples of the cases where SCOTUS "muddled the waters" on this topic? These seems cut and dry based on the plain reading of the Constitution, but I haven't read any cases where SCOTUS addressed this, so perhaps you're right and they have messed this up already.
Edit: The Wikipedia article does a nice job discussing the five (5!) cases where SCOTUS decided that a law was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The key question in this case is whether prohibiting government agencies from purchasing telecommunication equipment from these 2 organization is "punishment" or not. If it's punishment then that's a problem since there wasn't due process and it wasn't conducted by the judiciary. If it's not punishment, it's not a bill of attainder, so no problem.
I don't think the US will have any trouble whatsoever in asserting a nonpunative goal, namely reducing the risk of foreign actors compromising government communications. This hail Mary by Huawei will fail completely and quickly.
China already has the second largest blue water navy, after the U.S, and it's rapid growth in tonnage, if not quality, and with the aggressive verbiage of the CCP, it is expected that there will be continued escalation of "incidences" that will in a few year, likely move to live fire and a quick escalation to conflict. The West certainly doesn't want to rely on Chinese Telecom equipment in that scenario, and while the worst case of a "kill switch" is unlikely, there will be continued cyberwarfare that will attempt to do the same thing; shut down the West's communications systems to create crisis.