Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

[AssassinsMace]

He is considered a fugitive hiding in Germany. However Germany does not extradite its citizens to the US. Yet you don't see the US throw tantrums and arrest German citizens on spurious charges in retaliation.

I understand CCP needed to save face back home, but that kind of posturing damaged Huawei's case.

In the West it's called ego not saving face. This whole thing is about how the West doesn't want to cede supremacy to the Chinese. Saving face is the EU trying to blame China for the refugee crisis in Europe because China makes and sells inflatable boats that people in the developing world can afford that were used to get to Europe instead of blaming themselves for a bad foreign policy of regime change that caused the refugee crisis in the first place.

 

[zgx09t]

He is considered a fugitive hiding in Germany. However Germany does not extradite its citizens to the US. Yet you don't see the US throw tantrums and arrest German citizens on spurious charges in retaliation.

I understand CCP needed to save face back home, but that kind of posturing damaged Huawei's case.

Jeff Sessions was gone not long after the indictment. So who knows how things could have unfolded with his vengeful threats. Besides, VW pleaded guilty fair and square before the court and paid penalties. Top executives both in US and Europe were in the same legal troubles for the dieselgate. US court jailed an executive 7 years and sent him back to Germany a few months later. This is clearly a criminal case, not politically motivated scheme with trumped up charges, whereas Huawei case was based on shady, clandestine, politically motivated charges that required a third party jurisdiction that snatched her up like she is already guilty without any evidence or proof - some rule of law democratic country indeed. Huawei is simply the lightening rod that takes the brunt of US failures and paranoia.Huawei has done something right to earn such a blatant US scorn and brazen day-light kidnapping in full public view.

US has more Canadians in their detention than China has currently. So go figure your MSM fake news peddling anti-China narratives being bought line hook and sink even across the pond where Mr TariffMan sight is just about to set for a little fun ride.

Good sprinkling of CCP would certainly earn you some tasty freedom fries with what, Euro cheese?

 

[weig2000]

Huawei's foldable Mate X was shown with a lot of great comments and reviews. The early impressions appear to be much more favorable to Mate X than Galaxy Fold.

Below is the video where Huawei Consumer BU CEO Richard Yu introduced the Mate X to the crowd. Some comments about his presentation and English at the comment section of the video are pretty funny and hilarious.

 

[localizer]

You can see why Huawei and Sammy took diff approaches. Folding outwards is obviously better looking/more logical but will probably need regenerative plastic to deal with the continuous elongation and compression of the substrate. I honestly don't like Samsung's implementation which is rather redundant and adds necessary thickness. It's only 7.3" (with big notch) when iphone XS max is already 6.5".

 

[Brumby]

Whilst I agreed that security trumpes economics.
This is true for any government in the world. That is the ability to defend ones land and increase prosperity of its people.
But. My question is this.
What security issues theses countries have with China? China is not likely to invade them any time soon!
If security is basically the ability of China to spy via the use of their telecommunication network. Please. Give me strength I think US and western nations are the best in the spyng game.

I cannot speak for other countries and in their decision making process but here in Australia I am somewhat familiar with the debate and arguments for banning Huawei in the 5G implementation. Huawei is considered a high security risk vendor for reasons I will outline below. As a preamble it is important to appreciate that 5G due to its complexity brings a new level of overall security risk not present in 4G. This is the technical advice provided by the chief of Australia’s Signals Directorate (ASD) and became a significant consideration in Australia’s decision to ban Huawei. Essentially with 5G, a firewall between the core technology and its edge cannot be reasonably assured unlike in 4G. As such, the choice of vendor to the technology implementation is critical in ensuring security integrity in the 5G technology chain. A 5G infrastructure under gird Australia’s economic and security future. The risk of a ‘trojan horse” that can potentially undermine privacy, liberty and security is an unacceptable risk for Australia.

Huawei do not have a history of ethical behaviour by western standards especially with its theft and violation of proprietary data. For example, there are documented history of Huawei’s disregard for the intellectual property rights of other companies in the United States. This include the 2010 Motorola case over the misappropriation of proprietary wireless switching technology and in the 2003 Cisco case of stealing proprietary network router technology. This eventuated the US House Intelligence Committee in 2012 to issue a public report that Huawei posed a potential threat to national security. The most recent indictment regarding T-Mobile filed on 16th January 2019 in the US District court of Seattle Washington outlined in detail not only Huawei’s attempt at stealing proprietary information but in its subsequent cover up. Details revealed including Huawei’s official policy of not only actively encouraging its employees to steal confidential information from competitor but reward them for their effort. It is therefore not surprising that an executive of Huawei was caught for spying in Poland. The second indictment against Huawei issued on 24th January 2019 in the US District court of New York further outlines how it structures entity and operate it to bypass US regulations.

More importantly, the opaque relationship between Huawei and Beijing and its willingness or lack of freedom to do anything other than Beijing’s bidding is a serious consideration. This is amplified by China’s National Intelligence Law, passed in 2017 that compels “all organisations and citizens” to help the country’s intelligence work. Article 38 of China’s cyber security law compels a telecommunications firm such as Huawei to do its bidding. Anxiety about Huawei equipment is not theoretical. Beijing for five years, from 2012 to 2017,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

using “backdoors” in Huawei equipment installed in the new African Union headquarters, which China donated to the organization. In 2018, the USTR issued a 215 page report which contained about a thousand cases outlining China’s attempt at “forced” technology transfers through various means and China’s official response was simply to brush it off.

Australia as a sovereign nation takes its security concerns seriously and China’s past behavior and recent posture does not suggest it will modify its future behavior. Australia will need to do what it considers necessary to protect itself and its own interest. Just last week, a “state actor’ conducted cyber hacks on both of Australia’s political parties and it is obvious who was the “state actor”.

 

[Brumby]

The person who says what you want to hear isn't automatically the guy who "balanced everything and came up with the truth."

How true. I see it everyday on this thread and others. There is even a descriptive phrase for it, it is known as the "echo chamber". Sometimes it is good to have a degree of self awareness and how far the bias has trajected.

 

[Brumby]

I don't get this 'freedom' thing you keep talking about, and how it applies?

If its individual freedom then isn't it the choice for someone to be able to buy the handset they want, whether its bugged or not, surely its their decision not the government's dictate on what's banned and what's not?

If its business freedoms isn't it the choice of a company to pick the right technology at the right price and not the government's?

Or is it just the government's freedom to do as it pleases, sign an executive order and be done? (but I think they call that dictatorship in other parts of the world!)

You are conflating two issues as if they are similar. The ban on Huawei is connected to 5G implementation and government sponsored phones. Consumers have freedom to choose whatever phones they want.

In 'oppressed' China the people appear to have freedom of choice on what handset they can buy, the government didn't go on the airwaves and tell people Samsung S9s and iPhones are insecure, made by a hostile foreign power, don't buy them! They don't seem to have told their telecos buy Nokia or Ericsson (would have picked an American 5G supplier but there aren't any!) and you won't get your licences renewed!

How does this 'fighting for freedom' thing work? What are we fighting for exactly? and what freedoms?

The most basic tenet in meaning of freedom is the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and are simply embodied as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual. The difference in the two world views are significant since you asked. In a society which enjoys freedom for example you have access to information not just censored information. If you were to complain such as in an oppressed state, you get hauled in by security officers and you may get limited access to outside counsel. If you are lucky you may get your day in court. The courts are owned and appointed by the state. If you are not so lucky you just disappear with no recourse. If you don't understand such a difference, maybe at best you are taking for granted the meaning of freedom or worst you are too indoctrinated to appreciate the difference.

 

[localizer]

lol these guys come to trigger Chinese posters with off-topic statement then blame Chinese posters for going off topic when they respond. Nice.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Huawei do not have a history of ethical behaviour by western standards especially with its theft and violation of proprietary data. For example, there are documented history of Huawei’s disregard for the intellectual property rights of other companies in the United States. This include the 2010 Motorola case over the misappropriation of proprietary wireless switching technology and in the 2003 Cisco case of stealing proprietary network router technology. This eventuated the US House Intelligence Committee in 2012 to issue a public report that Huawei posed a potential threat to national security. The most recent indictment regarding T-Mobile filed on 16th January 2019 in the US District court of Seattle Washington outlined in detail not only Huawei’s attempt at stealing proprietary information but in its subsequent cover up. Details revealed including Huawei’s official policy of not only actively encouraging its employees to steal confidential information from competitor but reward them for their effort. It is therefore not surprising that an executive of Huawei was caught for spying in Poland. The second indictment against Huawei issued on 24th January 2019 in the US District court of New York further outlines how it structures entity and operate it to bypass US regulations.

More importantly, the opaque relationship between Huawei and Beijing and its willingness or lack of freedom to do anything other than Beijing’s bidding is a serious consideration. This is amplified by China’s National Intelligence Law, passed in 2017 that compels “all organisations and citizens” to help the country’s intelligence work. Article 38 of China’s cyber security law compels a telecommunications firm such as Huawei to do its bidding. Anxiety about Huawei equipment is not theoretical. Beijing for five years, from 2012 to 2017,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

using “backdoors” in Huawei equipment installed in the new African Union headquarters, which China donated to the organization. In 2018, the USTR issued a 215 page report which contained about a thousand cases outlining China’s attempt at “forced” technology transfers through various means and China’s official response was simply to brush it off.

Australia as a sovereign nation takes its security concerns seriously and China’s past behavior and recent posture does not suggest it will modify its future behavior. Australia will need to do what it considers necessary to protect itself and its own interest. Just last week, a “state actor’ conducted cyber hacks on both of Australia’s political parties and it is obvious who was the “state actor”.

The case with Cisco and T mobile has been settle amicably and no harm was done Case close It is an old story that was bring back to life because the US justice need an argument to prosecute Huawei. There are hundred of patent argument between companies that were settle out of court But hey they need something to use as cudgel against Huawei

N one has proven conclusively that Huawei has a backdoor installed on their network Those African union incident is nothing but unproven allegation by a french engineer with ulterior motive to defame and smear Huawei . His allegation was why the led in the network blinking when there is no one in the room Well My cable modem and wifi are also blinking even I didn't use it
The Africa union subsequently formally launch investigation over the the allegation and no hacking was ever found They issue formal denial that Huawei or China ever attempted hacking the network case close!
But off course paranoid and racist Ozzie never let it go instead clinging on this straw men lie

 

[localizer]

damn even samsung can't fix the crease.