"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Given how ignorant and arrogant you are I’d have guessed you were the Trump supporter.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Given how ignorant and arrogant you are I’d have guessed you were the Trump supporter.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Given how ignorant and arrogant you are I’d have guessed you were the Trump supporter.
I'll accept that as close as your arrogance can come to an apology.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
You are hopping wildly from point to point without contesting the core claims.
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
You are hopping wildly from point to point without contesting the core claims.
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
The Chair of the Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, said:
"The UK’s relationship with China is important to the British people. In this inquiry, we’ve been trying to understand China's approach to international laws, norms, rules and institutions, and in turn to understand what this means for the UK. What we’ve found is that the current framework of UK policy towards China reflects an unwillingness to face the reality of China's strategic direction.
"We have grounds for concern about Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G infrastructure. We heard allegations about attempted interference in the UK’s domestic affairs and the impact the treatment of the Uighur-Muslim population and other minorities in China’s Xinjiang province could have in stirring up resentment that could affect other countries including us, here in the UK.
"We must recognise that there are hard limits to what cooperation can achieve; that the values and interests of the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the Chinese state, are often very different from those of the United Kingdom; and that the divergence of values and interests fundamentally shapes China's worldview. This doesn’t mean that the Government should seek confrontation with China - or abandon cooperation.
"We do think that a constructive, pragmatic and often positive UK relationship with China is possible. Indeed, it’s essential. But achieving this will require strategy, rigour and unity in place of hope and muddling through."
Committee recommendations
The Committee lays out key questions that the UK’s new China strategy must answer. In addition to this, the Committee makes recommendations on several specific topics.
The Committee calls on the Government to:
Take a strictly case-by-case approach to projects under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and not sign a Memorandum of Understanding in support of the BRI.
Continue to exercise freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but make a statement clarifying the purpose and legal basis of future UK naval operations there.
Not permit core principles, such as freedom of navigation and the rights of countries to form alliances, to become a matter for negotiation in economic dialogue with China.
Encourage the United States and China to focus on the protection of the integrity of the global trade regime, including reciprocal market access, in their trade negotiations.
Respond to China’s attempts to subvert international human rights mechanisms, and support UN efforts to investigate the extremely concerning situation in Xinjiang.
Conduct a “lessons-learned” exercise across Government examining successes and failures in shifting Chinese positions on specific policy issues.
Continue to speak out in support of Hong Kong’s autonomy, which the Committee believes is at risk.
Be cautious about the involvement of Chinese companies in any aspect of UK critical national infrastructure, including telecommunications.
Assess whether the Chinese government, or individuals or entities acting on behalf of the Chinese government, have improperly interfered, or attempted to interfere, in the UK's political institutions and processes, the rule of law, UK media or UK academia, and set out what it is doing to counter such interference, or the prospect of it.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
You are hopping wildly from point to point without contesting the core claims.
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
The Chair of the Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, said:
"The UK’s relationship with China is important to the British people. In this inquiry, we’ve been trying to understand China's approach to international laws, norms, rules and institutions, and in turn to understand what this means for the UK. What we’ve found is that the current framework of UK policy towards China reflects an unwillingness to face the reality of China's strategic direction.
"We have grounds for concern about Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G infrastructure. We heard allegations about attempted interference in the UK’s domestic affairs and the impact the treatment of the Uighur-Muslim population and other minorities in China’s Xinjiang province could have in stirring up resentment that could affect other countries including us, here in the UK.
"We must recognise that there are hard limits to what cooperation can achieve; that the values and interests of the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the Chinese state, are often very different from those of the United Kingdom; and that the divergence of values and interests fundamentally shapes China's worldview. This doesn’t mean that the Government should seek confrontation with China - or abandon cooperation.
"We do think that a constructive, pragmatic and often positive UK relationship with China is possible. Indeed, it’s essential. But achieving this will require strategy, rigour and unity in place of hope and muddling through."
Committee recommendations
The Committee lays out key questions that the UK’s new China strategy must answer. In addition to this, the Committee makes recommendations on several specific topics.
The Committee calls on the Government to:
Take a strictly case-by-case approach to projects under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and not sign a Memorandum of Understanding in support of the BRI.
Continue to exercise freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but make a statement clarifying the purpose and legal basis of future UK naval operations there.
Not permit core principles, such as freedom of navigation and the rights of countries to form alliances, to become a matter for negotiation in economic dialogue with China.
Encourage the United States and China to focus on the protection of the integrity of the global trade regime, including reciprocal market access, in their trade negotiations.
Respond to China’s attempts to subvert international human rights mechanisms, and support UN efforts to investigate the extremely concerning situation in Xinjiang.
Conduct a “lessons-learned” exercise across Government examining successes and failures in shifting Chinese positions on specific policy issues.
Continue to speak out in support of Hong Kong’s autonomy, which the Committee believes is at risk.
Be cautious about the involvement of Chinese companies in any aspect of UK critical national infrastructure, including telecommunications.
Assess whether the Chinese government, or individuals or entities acting on behalf of the Chinese government, have improperly interfered, or attempted to interfere, in the UK's political institutions and processes, the rule of law, UK media or UK academia, and set out what it is doing to counter such interference, or the prospect of it.
Britain begins to wake up.
Two years ago and only a recommendation. Basically business as usual and no mention of a ban.
In fact, those recommendations form the blueprint of current policy which affects every player in the communications realm (not limited to Huawei and seeks to apply universal rules to everyone. Something Huawei, the EU and the wider industry has been pushing for. Further up I mentioned that this approach was discussed in detail at MWC2019. The need for industry wide certification on security. That includes manufacturing chains.
I like how you seek any opportunity to throw Huawei and China into the same sack and quote a select committee on - China - that mentions Huawei to make it seem they are one and the same.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Given how ignorant and arrogant you are I’d have guessed you were the Trump supporter.
I'll accept that as close as your arrogance can come to an apology.
Lol, that’s as far from an apology as one can get genius. Then again there’s not much difference between the far right and the far left.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
...
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
and,
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.
So let me get this straight:
A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...
Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.
Got it.
They have attacked us. Read history genius. PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
And, England attacked us... So we should stop buying anything from England?
If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
LOL.... You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again. I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance. It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Nope. You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
Genius.
LOL... ... "Genius"... So it really was China who attacked our 2016 and 2018 elections? Or, is it that you simply believe the Trumpian propaganda from the guy living in the house that is painted white -- because the British attacked it and burned it awhile back. Or, maybe we should talk about his friends in Saudi Arabia who knocked down a couple buildings in New York?
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.
Given how ignorant and arrogant you are I’d have guessed you were the Trump supporter.
I'll accept that as close as your arrogance can come to an apology.
Lol, that’s as far from an apology as one can get genius. Then again there’s not much difference between the far right and the far left.
I guess fact based reality sounds like genius to those duped by Trumpian political rhetoric.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
You are hopping wildly from point to point without contesting the core claims.
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
The Chair of the Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, said:
"The UK’s relationship with China is important to the British people. In this inquiry, we’ve been trying to understand China's approach to international laws, norms, rules and institutions, and in turn to understand what this means for the UK. What we’ve found is that the current framework of UK policy towards China reflects an unwillingness to face the reality of China's strategic direction.
"We have grounds for concern about Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G infrastructure. We heard allegations about attempted interference in the UK’s domestic affairs and the impact the treatment of the Uighur-Muslim population and other minorities in China’s Xinjiang province could have in stirring up resentment that could affect other countries including us, here in the UK.
"We must recognise that there are hard limits to what cooperation can achieve; that the values and interests of the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the Chinese state, are often very different from those of the United Kingdom; and that the divergence of values and interests fundamentally shapes China's worldview. This doesn’t mean that the Government should seek confrontation with China - or abandon cooperation.
"We do think that a constructive, pragmatic and often positive UK relationship with China is possible. Indeed, it’s essential. But achieving this will require strategy, rigour and unity in place of hope and muddling through."
Committee recommendations
The Committee lays out key questions that the UK’s new China strategy must answer. In addition to this, the Committee makes recommendations on several specific topics.
The Committee calls on the Government to:
Take a strictly case-by-case approach to projects under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and not sign a Memorandum of Understanding in support of the BRI.
Continue to exercise freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but make a statement clarifying the purpose and legal basis of future UK naval operations there.
Not permit core principles, such as freedom of navigation and the rights of countries to form alliances, to become a matter for negotiation in economic dialogue with China.
Encourage the United States and China to focus on the protection of the integrity of the global trade regime, including reciprocal market access, in their trade negotiations.
Respond to China’s attempts to subvert international human rights mechanisms, and support UN efforts to investigate the extremely concerning situation in Xinjiang.
Conduct a “lessons-learned” exercise across Government examining successes and failures in shifting Chinese positions on specific policy issues.
Continue to speak out in support of Hong Kong’s autonomy, which the Committee believes is at risk.
Be cautious about the involvement of Chinese companies in any aspect of UK critical national infrastructure, including telecommunications.
Assess whether the Chinese government, or individuals or entities acting on behalf of the Chinese government, have improperly interfered, or attempted to interfere, in the UK's political institutions and processes, the rule of law, UK media or UK academia, and set out what it is doing to counter such interference, or the prospect of it.
Britain begins to wake up.
Two years ago and only a recommendation. Basically business as usual and no mention of a ban.
In fact, those recommendations form the blueprint of current policy which affects every player in the communications realm (not limited to Huawei and seeks to apply universal rules to everyone. Something Huawei, the EU and the wider industry has been pushing for. Further up I mentioned that this approach was discussed in detail at MWC2019. The need for industry wide certification on security. That includes manufacturing chains.
I like how you seek any opportunity to throw Huawei and China into the same sack and quote a select committee on - China - that mentions Huawei to make it seem they are one and the same.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
"Two Canadian men detained in China are being held in isolation, barred from going outside or seeing the sun.
Wednesday marked four months of detention for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are being held in a government system that gives Chinese authorities up to six months to conduct interrogations outside the formal legal system.
Chinese authorities seized the two men on Dec. 10, days after the arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. Ever since, the men have been subjected to interrogations of six to eight hours a day, according to a Canadian official, who was granted anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.
China has accused Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor of espionage-related offences, although neither man has been formally charged. They have been prevented from seeing family or lawyers but have been granted monthly, 30-minute consular meetings. Those meetings provide the sole opportunity to leave the facilities where they are being held."
Tell me again about the wonderful Chinese Government that Huawei is intertwined with, especially for internal security, ie, the police state.
That's China, not Huawei. Should I make similar comparisons between Guantanamo and Apple?
Huawei is deeply involved in providing technology for China's surveillance state, in fact, you even argued that through your constant bragging about Huawei's server, AI and communications technology, which, as in the example that I posted about Pakistan, and the African Union, seems ripe for foreign intelligence gathering.
That article that you posted about Ren had numerous paragraphs referring to stolen IP and Huawei's deep connections to the Chinese Government.
As one of the other posters noted, you seem to have given up on the EU, and have decided to throw in with China and Huawei, your "team" as I have noted in the past.
I posted the LA Times article because it was a balanced, US perspective and a fairly complete overview.
Of course it mentions allegations. The allegations exist but they are just that -allegations.
I have no idea what you mean with 'giving up on the EU'.
The EU decided to develop its own tech precisely to have less dependence on outside technology. The end result will be less income and influence for the US.
However, you can't develop your own tech overnight. It takes years but the ball is rolling - just like I said. Follow it at the link above.
As for providing technology to government. Woo Hoo! Welcome to the real world. Huawei provides technology to many governments. It's business! Yes, it has a division within HiSilicon developing AI assisted silicon for image recognition. That can have all manner of uses - including military.
The point is it can also be used to grant your grandmother access to your home!
It isn't the technology, but how it is used and it isn't as if there isn't a very long list of domestic US companies doing the exact same thing! It's normal.
But, as for 5G chips, it looks like Huawei has capacity reserved at TSMC:
You seem unaware that Sweden (Ericsson), and Finland (Nokia), also have current 5G telecom technology that is available, yet you constantly push Huawei.
As for uses of technology, I would be hard pressed to find a more oppressive society than China, but again, that's something that you appear to ignore.
Again, using Trump's own words is not a reliable indication of U.S. policy.
The dude likely has early stage dementia.
This is incorrect. I do not 'push' Huawei.
I counter a lot (but by no means all) of partisan misinformation produced here. Often it is wilful, sometimes it is through lack of knowledge.
Huawei is much more than a regular communications company (not unlike Samsung) whose activities spill over into other areas. As such, the name might come into a handset debate, a standards debate, an infrastructure debate, (recently) a political debate, a manufacturing debate etc. The scope is very wide.
If I don't mention Nokia & Co it is simply because they are not relevant to the discussion here. Their scope isn't as wide.
Another reason is that I don't know enough about them to form a deep enough opinion. That is the reason I don't speak much about Samsung either.
It is up to readers to form their own opinions based on what they already have and what they can pick out of the thread they are reading based on what is said and how it is presented and backed up.
If I feel I can speak about Apple and Huawei, it is because I know a fair bit about both companies.
On Trump, I tend to limit myself to what is already on record (which is a fair bit). While he may not be a fair indication of future policy, he currently represents the official policy.
You certainly do push Huawei, frequently in your posts, and you have an obvious and tremendous bias towards them. Whether you are an evangelist or propagandist for them is immaterial; the result is apparent to us readers here.
The fact that you don't even attempt to understand what your own EU market can provide in terms of 5G infrastructure is telling.
You have an opinion. You are mistaken
If I wanted to evangelise you would see a completely different style but that is unnecessary.
As for the EU, I am perfectly aware of the situation and it is exactly how I have portrayed it every step of the way - reflecting events as they happen. When it is fact based and when it is opinion based.
What don't I understand?
What don't you understand is that even in the EU, there is continued concern about security with Huawei and ZTE hardware in 5G infrastructure, and rightfully so.
"trayer was referring to telecommunications regulations German officials announced last month that committed Berlin to working only with “trustworthy suppliers” but failed to ban Huawei outright. U.S. officials had viewed the regulations as a snub, but Strayer appeared to be more conciliatory, referring to “risk mitigation” and fears regarding “rule of law.”
“Systems may only be sourced from trustworthy suppliers whose compliance with national security regulations and provisions for the secrecy of telecommunications and for data protection is assured,” the German regulations read. “Network traffic must be regularly and constantly monitored for any abnormality and, if there is any cause for concern, appropriate protection measures must be taken.”
Washington believes the wording could be used to ban Huawei and another prominent Chinese equipment supplier, ZTE, according to Strayer.
“It’s hard to see how Chinese technology would meet that standard for protection of data,” he said."
It appears that the EU is in fact concerned about 5G security and is becoming concerned about the Chinese impact of BRI in the EU.
The Trump administration relies on spin. That's spin. The truth is: They got snubbed. Europe called bull.
Yeah, the EU has its own plan to limit Huawei, and that is "trustworthy suppliers", which the U.S. is encouraging, as long as its in the strictest sense.
Same result, without the outright "banning" of Huawei. Follow what the professionals are saying, not what comes out of Trump's mouth or twitter.
Why are we allowing the Chinese to have Western IP which they militarize?
'For more than a year, debate has raged over allegations that the Chinese military is taking advantage of Google’s research and expansion into China. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a senate committee in March that Google’s work in China indirectly benefits the Chinese military, an accusation echoed by President Donald Trump. Google’s response was unequivocal: ‘We are not working with the Chinese military.’
...
'Scientists like Guan and those who visited Princeton are among the thousands of PLA officers and cadres who have been sent abroad as PhD students or visiting scholars in the past decade. In Picking flowers, making honey, an ASPI report published last October, I analysed these activities in detail and showed how the Chinese military exploits the openness of academic institutions to improve its own technology and expertise. The report’s title comes from a saying the PLA has used to describe its international collaboration: ‘Picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.’
"Many Western companies and their employees have worked with the Chinese military in ways that could advance its intelligence and warfighting capabilities. A Financial Timesarticle recently uncovered Microsoft’s ties to Chinese military AI researchers. Since at least 2010, Microsoft’s Asian research arm has taken interns from the PLA.
It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that companies such as Google and Microsoft have been caught up in the PLA’s efforts to leverage domestic and overseas expertise. Universities often engage in little scrutiny of their Chinese partners; leading universities in Germany, Australia, Norway, the US and the UK have all accepted Chinese military officers who claimed to be from non-existent institutions as visiting scholars. Some companies and even governments have made similar mistakes.
It’s encouraging to see that efforts are emerging to develop clearer policy guidance and regulation to help universities and companies understand and address this critical national security problem, although much more needs to be done.
Collaboration with the PLA often crosses a red line, but activities that indirectly benefit the Chinese military pose a tough challenge. Military–civil fusion, the Chinese government policy that’s pushing the PLA to cultivate international research ties, is also building greater integration between Chinese civilian universities and the military. As ASPI non-resident fellow Elsa Kania has pointed out, Google’s work with Tsinghua University is worrying because of the university’s growing integration with the PLA.
This raises a troubling question: if a company, government or university is unable to control collaboration with overt Chinese military entities, how can it effectively manage more difficult areas, like collaboration with military-linked entities?"
Still, with all of the integration of the PLA in civilian technology, it is hare for me to imagine why Avon b7 has no security concerns about Huawei, and you are obviously just low information, and like it that way.
For security concerns (spying for example) I have concerns with EVERYONE but at government level, not at a company level.
You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between the two. Utterly incapable.
Huawei has been in this industry for more than 30 years, converting itself into an industry colossus. A world leader and national Chinese champion. Not only for the Chinese people but also the government. TRUSTED in more than 170 countries.
Now, just one single case of bad faith, spying or other nefarious behaviour would see the demise of the entire company - overnight. I have said this many times. Huawei has said it many times. There is no getting away from this fact.
Why on earth would Huawei knowingly put everything it has achieved in the grinder by acting in bad faith.
ONE single reason would suffice.
No one has been able to counter this fact in the 30 years of the company. No one.
The US, ALL of its security agencies included, have been desperately searching for something for YEARS. In spite of their efforts, NOTHING has come of it.
From the LA Times piece:
"The rhetoric and the indictments notwithstanding, none of the U.S. intelligence officials interviewed over several months for this story have made information public that supports the most damning assertions about China’s control over Huawei and about Ren’s early ties to Chinese military intelligence.
They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Let me highlight that. Non stop accusations, bullying, threats, even offering to pay for nations not to use Huawei equipment and, according to that piece (and lots more like it) there is NO evidence. Wow! Just wow!
The US has nothing!
On the other hand Cisco and AT&T have been found to fully cooperate US government agencies in the name of National Security.
The Germans complained and Obama had to apologise for spying on them. An erm, ally!
Get real.
Why would Huawei do anything to knowingly destroy the company.
Yes, it is open to attack. Just like everyone else. It can't PV over 180,000 employees.
Nor is Huawei perfect. Just like no one else is perfect.
Your whole case has literally no legs and I've pointed these simple truths out to you on numerous occasions.
You have faith in Huawei. I do not.
Australia has intimate knowledge of Huawei telecom operations, and has banned Huawei from any 5G telecom infrastructure.
'This apparent disregard for the public of the overseas markets in which they operate has been seen in their PR practices in relating to overseas media, from vaguely threatening advertising campaigns and (until recently) notoriously media-shy senior executives, to a 2015 tour of their Shanghai campus in which media members reportedly had their phones and cameras confiscated. According to Angus Grigg of the Australian Financial Review, when reporters on the tour asked about the company’s connections with the Chinese government, they were told that they could not mention the Huawei tour in their articles and that the group of roughly 30 members of the media should leave immediately.
It also seems as though it may be a policy of Huawei’s to say different things to domestic audiences and international audiences, even if they seem contradictory.
As the company’s former US PR chief William Plummer wrote in his book Huidu: Inside Huawei, founder Ren Zhengfei advised Huawei executives in 2014: “In China, state that Huawei strongly supports the Communist Party of China. Outside China, stress that Huawei always follows key international trends.”
If Plummer’s recollection is correct, what he is describing sounds dishonest, or at least disingenuous.'
You can't possibly change my mind because you haven't provided anything but faith that Huawei will be secure.
Once again your argument boils down to 'if true'.
In fact it isn't even an argument. The situation you describe isn't even noteworthy. Happens all the time, everywhere. Especially in foreign affairs - which is exactly what you are describing.
You see unable to digest that China is a bad actor, and just maybe, so is Huawei when the Party wants something.
Bad actor? The entire world has economic ties with China and is signing more deals by the day. They hold a HUGE amount of US debt. The US imports a huge amount of goods from China. The trade deficit is one of your president's recurring complaints.
How bad is 'bad' because for a bad actor they seem to have decent relations with virtually everyone. Or is it that you simply don't like how it is governed.
I remember the China of 40 years ago and things weren't good. Believe me, things have progressed since then.
I'm not a fan of how it is governed either but it is not my country and just like everyone else, I wouldn't pull all of my interests out in protest. Not me or anyone. The US and of course Apple included.
That puts the 'bad actor' claim into fair context with some facts.
"things have progressed since then".
I beg to differ. There has clearly been a pattern of regression in China since Xi Jinping became President, and especially since 2015 when he became President for Life.
China's military expansion is also a threat to the West, and notably, Canada is concerned about China;
"So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.
Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well."
You beg to differ?
China today has come on in leaps and bounds. It is far from perfect but if you beg to differ, you clearly have no idea of what life was like back then
Wealth has certainly increased, but there has been a turn to much more authoritarian rule. You may think that is an acceptable tradeoff, but I don't, likely because my country has a culture of individual freedoms that China lacks.
'In mid-2017, Alim, a Uighur man in his 20s, returned to China from studying abroad. As soon as he landed back in the country, he was pulled off the plane by police officers. He was told his trip abroad meant that he was now under suspicion of being “unsafe”. The police administered what they call a “health check”, which involved collecting several types of biometric data, including DNA, blood type, fingerprints, voice recordings and face scans – a process that all adults in the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, in north-west China, are expected to undergo.'
Have things changed since then in Britain? I hope so.
Now look back through the history of the US and its actions at home and abroad. Have things changed. I hope so.
The fact that it is 'business as usual' for the US with China (in spite of the tariffs/Huawei situation) says a lot. You are pretty much alone in your inability to recognise the progress made in China and put it into historical perspective.
You protest about human rights, freedoms and the rest but still purchase goods made in China. How far are you prepared to go in your protest against this 'Bad Actor'?
It rings somewhat hollow to me.
Would you stop buying Apple gear made in China? I doubt it.
The current situation between Huawei and the US is down to politics and protectionism, not national security. 'Bad Actors' have nothing to do with anything.
You use protectionism in the wrong context. The U.S. doesn't manufacture 5G telecom equipment, relying on the market.
Unfortunately, your whataboutism isn't an answer to the problems that I have outlined in China. It's just your rationalization so that you can continue to push Huawei.
It doesn't have to manufacture any 5G equipment. It is about protecting its position in telecoms in general AND not losing out to China in such a key space
Trump has made that very clear.
Do you remember the PNG-Australia undersea cable that Huawei won the contract for and the US pressured Australia to back out of? Does that sound familiar to the the deal AT&T backed out of in 2018 to distribute Huawei phones - once again due to US pressure?
Well, that contract didn't go to Nokia or Ericsson - it went to a US company.
A full year later, Huawei phones still have not been banned in the US. How can you speak of 'relying on the market' if the market is not allowed to function as a market!?
If Apple decided to use Huawei for its 5G modem, as part of 'relying on the market', do you think they too would not be pressured out of the idea?
Huawei would have a serious impact on Apple if it were allowed to operate freely in the US market without government interference.
Believe me. It is protectionism and even the US press is showing indications of recognising this:
"Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Trump administration views 5G as critical to the United States’ national and economic security."
That isn't protectionism.
That's National Security. I've been stating that all along, and yes, economic security comes from protecting the infrastructure of your country.
For a fact, Australia has made its own mind up about the Chinese, and if you happen to read any of the articles that I post, they are concerned about Chinese influence in their politics. This is a problem in New Zealand, Canada, and the EU as well, and certainly, the Chinese are attempting to have influence via Mar a Lago.
Of course, you yourself would never be under the influence of the Chinese...
Yes, you have been stating the same as Pompeo, Rubio & Co and been unable to back it up with anything. No surprises there seeing as there is nothing to back it up with anyway.
Reality swirls around you but you simply ignore it even when your own president doesn't act on his own words. So while he sends Pompeo on a world tour threatening allies for not following US mantra, the US has not signed the executive order to formerly ban Huawei! All because the US knows that would complicate trade talks with China.
What was it you said about people saying one thing to one group and another to a different group? Dishonesty?
The US has not told China it will formerly ban Huawei. If it had, the executive order would have been signed already.
And you wonder why the US is losing credibility in the EU and the EU is moving to secure its own technological future (as is China by the way).
You didn't answer many of my questions so I will insist. Would the US allow Apple (relying on the market) to use Huawei 5G modems?
It is protectionism and the US has basically admitted it formerly.
Trump says the US mustn't be 'outcompeted' so it tries to stop market competition by anyone who can effectively outcompete it. 'The US must win'.
Protectionism.
No, the U.S. wouldn't allow Apple to use that modem, and it was just a stunt my Huawei to offer it, but it has nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with National Security. Hence why Broadcom wasn't allowed to purchase Qualcomm.
You probably aren't even aware of the concerns that are being voiced by the EU wrt to technology transfer to China. Do your homework.
The Chinese are not going roll over for the Europeans. They want to be in control. You don't care, but others will.
So, you confirm that the US (in your opinion) would impede Apple from using a Huawei 5G modem.
Weird because no Huawei phone is currently banned for sale in the US. Where are the 'national security' concerns if you can buy a Huawei phone via US retailers without issue right now? A Balong 5000 5G phone is coming soon, remember.
As for the EU, 5G and Huawei, do you have news that I don't? A Chinese delegation just completed a high level EU visit and covered trade. Do you think Huawei and 5G weren't mentioned?
Huawei 5G, as of today, is counting on EU sales and the EU is counting on greater access to the Chinese market.
Note that you stance of Huawei being a bad actor had almost zero repurcussion during EU-China meetings.
When do you plan to give up on buying Apple's Chinese produced equipment in protest about the evil Chinese regime?
Weird because Huawei phones are not allowed in use on U.S. Military Installations, nor by any U.S. Military Personnel on duty, nor are any sold on any of the base exchanges. Other than the P30's cameras, I'm not seeing much interest in Huawei, and even then, Huawei is noted for its weak camera UI. If you want to absolutely catch the image, start with an iPhone; that's the general rule for photographers. It's all that realtime computational imaging that Apple is great at. BTW, you would think that the P30 would have garnered a much better grade on DXOMark over the P20 than it did; I'll consign that to diminishing returns.
As for 5G, Apple isn't in that big rush, and Intel has already stated that they will meet the deadline. There is still the opportunity for Qualcomm to fulfill Apple's 5G requrements as well. I'm not seeing Huawei's offer as anything more than a PR stunt.
You keep doing what you're doing, as will I, and will see how all of this shakes out. In the meantime, I will be looking forward to the next iPhone X, and you can look forward to upgrading your Honor 10.
Where are you going now? Photography?
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
Huawei phones are specifically banned for our Military and Civilian Governmental operations; I've never said otherwise. Using the Huawei modem would likely mean that Apple would have to be re-qualified for use in Government and Military applications. Apple wouldn't risk that, nor would they add yet another SKU just to get a 5G modem from Huawei. This is fantasy that will not happen. It would be more likely that Apple would go with a Samsung modem, and I don't see that happening either.
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
You are still skirting.
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
How's that P30 that you just bought?
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
You are hopping wildly from point to point without contesting the core claims.
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
The Chair of the Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, said:
"The UK’s relationship with China is important to the British people. In this inquiry, we’ve been trying to understand China's approach to international laws, norms, rules and institutions, and in turn to understand what this means for the UK. What we’ve found is that the current framework of UK policy towards China reflects an unwillingness to face the reality of China's strategic direction.
"We have grounds for concern about Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G infrastructure. We heard allegations about attempted interference in the UK’s domestic affairs and the impact the treatment of the Uighur-Muslim population and other minorities in China’s Xinjiang province could have in stirring up resentment that could affect other countries including us, here in the UK.
"We must recognise that there are hard limits to what cooperation can achieve; that the values and interests of the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the Chinese state, are often very different from those of the United Kingdom; and that the divergence of values and interests fundamentally shapes China's worldview. This doesn’t mean that the Government should seek confrontation with China - or abandon cooperation.
"We do think that a constructive, pragmatic and often positive UK relationship with China is possible. Indeed, it’s essential. But achieving this will require strategy, rigour and unity in place of hope and muddling through."
Committee recommendations
The Committee lays out key questions that the UK’s new China strategy must answer. In addition to this, the Committee makes recommendations on several specific topics.
The Committee calls on the Government to:
Take a strictly case-by-case approach to projects under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and not sign a Memorandum of Understanding in support of the BRI.
Continue to exercise freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but make a statement clarifying the purpose and legal basis of future UK naval operations there.
Not permit core principles, such as freedom of navigation and the rights of countries to form alliances, to become a matter for negotiation in economic dialogue with China.
Encourage the United States and China to focus on the protection of the integrity of the global trade regime, including reciprocal market access, in their trade negotiations.
Respond to China’s attempts to subvert international human rights mechanisms, and support UN efforts to investigate the extremely concerning situation in Xinjiang.
Conduct a “lessons-learned” exercise across Government examining successes and failures in shifting Chinese positions on specific policy issues.
Continue to speak out in support of Hong Kong’s autonomy, which the Committee believes is at risk.
Be cautious about the involvement of Chinese companies in any aspect of UK critical national infrastructure, including telecommunications.
Assess whether the Chinese government, or individuals or entities acting on behalf of the Chinese government, have improperly interfered, or attempted to interfere, in the UK's political institutions and processes, the rule of law, UK media or UK academia, and set out what it is doing to counter such interference, or the prospect of it.
Britain begins to wake up.
Two years ago and only a recommendation. Basically business as usual and no mention of a ban.
In fact, those recommendations form the blueprint of current policy which affects every player in the communications realm (not limited to Huawei and seeks to apply universal rules to everyone. Something Huawei, the EU and the wider industry has been pushing for. Further up I mentioned that this approach was discussed in detail at MWC2019. The need for industry wide certification on security. That includes manufacturing chains.
I like how you seek any opportunity to throw Huawei and China into the same sack and quote a select committee on - China - that mentions Huawei to make it seem they are one and the same.
Comments
Skirting the point completely.
Huawei phones are not banned in the US. There is no reason to think an Apple phone using a Huawei modem would be banned but you claim the government would not allow it on 'national security' grounds. Your argument fell apart when you tried to spin national security. Now it is just disintegrating. Your president, who sets policy, is not helping your argument either.
And on the subject of the P30 Pro and photography, I'm sure you don't want to open that melon ;-)
"Huawei has done it again and has produced a smartphone that should make Samsung and Apple worry. At more or less almost the same price as those two’s own flagships, the P30 Pro offers a mobile photography experience that perhaps only Google’s next Pixel might be able to threaten. Save for a few paper cuts, like unimpressive audio and a heavily-customized Android experience, the Huawei P30 Pro is almost perfect in every way."
https://www.slashgear.com/huawei-p30-pro-review-12572993/
There are plenty of reviews that knock Huawei's UI, including and especially in photography. Apple doesn't have the hardware that the Huawei P30 has, but it is by far the standard for responsiveness, and ease of use. Plenty of reviewers note that, and also, all of the missed shots from slow startup common among Android OS devices. Great images if you can deal with those limitations. I'll wait for this fall, thanks.
I've always wondered about your allegiances; you seem too wrapped up in Huawei, that you can't even comprehend even other Chinese competitors in the smartphone space, who also have excellent cameras and imagers. Just boggles the mind.
BTW, I don't give a shit about Huawei phones, and I suspect that most people here in North American don't either. There's plenty of variety without them, and Samsung is the Android OS leader, and they have a leading camera system as well.
I do not want Huawei Telecom anywhere in any of the Five Eyes countries, and would prefer none in the Fourteen Eyes, which includes Spain, but it is what it is. Other than that, I Huawei has the whole rest of the world to market to.
Kudos to Paul Allen, et al!
Brilliant achievement in flight;
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27427/stratolaunchs-roc-the-worlds-largest-aircraft-has-flown-for-the-first-time
There are plenty of iPhones that could be used in government. A 5G phone would just be a model or two (given Apple's penchant for keeping old phones on the lineup).
Not that government represents an important percentage of sales anyway. Totally irrelevant from a business perspective - which is what the whole point is anyway.
Yes, there are reviews that knock EMUI but virtually all of them make a point of saying it boils down to user preference. Remind me how many phones Huawei sold last year (and the year before etc) and I will tell you if users worry about EMUI. I love the flexibility of it and have never heard a single complaint about it. As you might imagine, I run into a lot of EMUI users.
Regarding the camera app, it is well liked in general (even called excellent) but again boils down to preference.
Camera app ease of use isn't an issue on any Huawei phone. Nor is responsiveness. They simply aren't issues. Missed shots? How many 'instant' photos does anyone try to take? 99.9% of photos have a degree of composition. No one does 'instant' composition and when those moments do pop up, holding the volume down button gives you instant burst mode. Lost shots are the ones the camera cannot even take if it wanted to.
Wait all you want. You have no alternative to waiting, do you. Tri cameras are already over a year old but you still have a long wait ahead of you. At least Apple's next phones will probably be cheaper. You can thank competition for that.
I don't care where competition comes from as long as it exists and while Huawei has moved ahead of Apple, if Chinese or Korean competitors move ahead of Huawei, I will celebrate that too.
Oh wait, they're expensive so Huawei doesn't actually sell all that many of them.
I'll have my triple lens iPhone at least by October. Will you do so well?
As for being "cheaper", I'm not seeing any pricing change at all, unless of course, I was buying in China, or one of a few other markets that is flooded with low cost devices, and more importantly, subsidies.
Buh Bye!
National security has vanished from your discourse!
As always I will indulge you, though.
I said iPhone prices will - probably - be cheaper. No one knows for sure but I would put money on that. Apple is so far behind right now, with the main flagships from both Samsung and Huawei (plus two folding phones) due to take things up yet another notch around the time of the next iPhone refresh. Throw in 5G marketing which will be a fever pitch for Christmas and you see Apple has little room to manoeuvre if the next refresh doesn't pull out all the stops. No 5G iPhone will be an added complication. Yes, I think pricing will be adjusted down. This is a pretty objective viewpoint.
Huawei doesn't sell many what? Flagships? Are you serious?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-tech-smartphones-analysis/chinese-smartphone-firms-jazz-up-products-seize-turf-in-home-market-from-apple-idUSKCN1R30CS
https://www.huaweicentral.com/huawei-sold-over-17-million-units-of-p20-series-and-7-5-million-units-of-mate-20-series-in-2018/
https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/04/08/huawei-6-million-units-p30-series-initial-production/
Not only are they selling more than ever, they are also affecting Apple's premium line.
I don't buy Huawei branded phones. I buy Honor. Honor is now in direct competition with Huawei and hopes to be the world's 4th largest handset vendor this year. Honor is able to ship key technologies with less bells and whistles at competitive prices. They specialise in the middle ground but have flagships too. Yes, they've had triple cameras for a while now and access to the latest SoCs. Night Mode? The P20 Pro tentpole feature. It rolled out to my phone a few months later in an update. Yes, I get major updates.
Now, back to national security.
Yeah, National Security, British view;
Chair's comments
The Chair of the Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, said:
In fact, those recommendations form the blueprint of current policy which affects every player in the communications realm (not limited to Huawei and seeks to apply universal rules to everyone. Something Huawei, the EU and the wider industry has been pushing for. Further up I mentioned that this approach was discussed in detail at MWC2019. The need for industry wide certification on security. That includes manufacturing chains.
I like how you seek any opportunity to throw Huawei and China into the same sack and quote a select committee on - China - that mentions Huawei to make it seem they are one and the same.
Huawei is Chinese, NOT China.
Here's another,
https://www.ft.com/content/d7145792-4743-11e9-b168-96a37d002cd3?shareType=nongift
The EU is increasingly concerned about China.
I will call you out on this one as it isn't the first time you thrown it in. The last time I let it go.
A recap:
T
EDIT: Post got mangled on s
Buh Bye.