8 ms·

Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

67 points by artemiszx 8y ago

ddoolin 8y ago
> “The actual and intended effect of these prohibitions is to bar Huawei from significant segments of the U.S. market for telecommunications equipment and services, thereby inflicting immediate and ongoing economic, competitive, and reputational harms on Huawei,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the suit. This is incredulously ironic coming from a Chinese company. China, who sets up just about every barrier imaginable to foreign companies. Do they also lobby the Chinese government in favor of easing restrictions on those foreign businesses? I'm not saying we should follow their lead or really commenting on the merits at all, but I just find these times to be quite strange & humorous indeed.
- pyrale 8y ago
  I don't see what is ironic about a company playing along with international trade rules set by the US, a country that also defends their internal market (e.g. buy american act, recent tariffs on steel, etc.)
- thetechlead 8y ago
  You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. In most areas, whatever restrictions/laws on foreign businesses, are also put on Chinese companies (private). Most foreign companies lost Chinese market due to fierce competition from local counterparts, not any imaginable barrier. Back in 2000s, Chinese government even gave green light when Huawei tried to sell [ref] itself to Motorola, but only been turned down by the American side, and in the past few months Huawei ascends from nowhere to the #1 target of US spy agencies. See the irony? edit ref: https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811663 https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811...
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. Is there any difference, really, specially if said company is a corporate arm of China's military?
    - thisgoodlife 8y ago
      wait, what? Isn't Huawei a private company?
      - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
        Why don't you understand the difference between appearances and reality? It's not a hard concept to understand. China is a dictatorship, a very successful and controlling one. You don't get to do much, without the Chinese government approving it. You do what they want when they want or else. This is why all the really big companies are run by party members. Saying they're aren't in bed with each other and the government isn't in overall control is like claiming a 5-year-old is free to do whatever they want. While it may look like it, at any time the parent can intervene to prevent the child from doing something they don't want.
      - khuey 8y ago
        Nobody knows. The ownership structure of Huawei is extremely obfuscated and it has a dual share class system where the employee shares have no voting rights.
      - j16sdiz 8y ago
        Huawei is the textbook example of how Chinese government own "private". See, for example, http://csis.org/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Huawei_casestudy_Web.pdf http://csis.org/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Hua... It is very common to have a "private" company, a party division and government department share a same registration address / contact person in China.
    - entity345 8y ago
      Nortel once had a CEO that was a former US Navy Admiral. Was Nortel a corporate arm of the US military? Edit: I flagged your comment because it's fake news and because you downvote anyone who do not agree.
  - DeonPenny 8y ago
    China ecosystem isn't anymore competitive than anyone elses. You notice all the founders of these chinese tech companies are also in the CCP
  - ratling 8y ago
    They are the same thing. You don’t do business in China without playing ball with the state.
    - jewelry_wolf 8y ago
      Don't you think that Huawei couldn't do business in US because it couldn't play the ball with the US government? LOL
      - ratling 8y ago
        Change their entire business model and act as a trojan horse for the US government? No that won't fly in the US (yes I'm aware of NSLs, there's a significant difference in degrees). In China that's standard procedure. Party says you switch up everything you're doing for their whims you do it.
  - ddoolin 8y ago
    Off-topic, but are you the same techlead from YouTube?
- rjf72 8y ago
  Economic systems aren't built on benevolence. The reason the US has the economic system it does is because they believe it to be the most 'effective' system by various metrics. Incidentally that's the exact same reason that China has the system it does. As a comparable example the reason the founding fathers built freedom of speech deep into the US constitution was not because they liked people saying naughty or unpopular things, but because they felt that systems in which those in power could control what those out of power could say was counter-productive to building and maintaining a strong nation. We do these things not because they are 'good' but because they are optimal. That's what makes this issue so interesting. On paper we've fully embraced globalism while China has embraced outward globalism and inward nationalism. In reality the US market is still completely dominated by US companies or by companies from 'friendly' nations. E.g. in smartphones South Korea and USA make up the vast majority of all sales. But now 'unfriendly' nations are increasingly creating products that are becoming not only competitive but in some cases industry leading. So we find ourselves in the position of countries such as China. Do you allow companies from 'unfriendly' nations to setup and start on what may be a path to dominance, or do you give unfair preference to domestic/'friendly' products? We never had this issue before because final product competition from 'unfriendly' nations was negligible! And this is before you get into all the intelligence intrigue going on behind the scenes. The NSA has stated they have access to "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" [1] on the products of 'participating' companies including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others. Suffice to say companies such as Huawei are less likely to 'participate' in such activities. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
- ganoushoreilly 8y ago
  It's definitely a case of using the somewhat fair US court systems to enforce a do as we say not as we do scenario. I imagine the USG will envoke national security protections to limit exposure of any information as they have in the past. I don't really see this case going anywhere, more so with EU countries making similar claims and allegations of their operating practices.
  - dirtyid 8y ago
    IMO Huawei's just seeking to rehabilitate their image, if the US refuses to publicly release evidence that contradicts the preponderance of sources that couldn't find back doors, then the entire US campaign against Huawei can be dismissed as a smear campaign. It's going to make US look dirty/petty and allows Huawei/China to save face. Huawei shares source code with GCHQ and US have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing, it wouldn't surprise me if there's actually nothing. Of course the concern is future potential risk, and that's valid. But the short term concern is to dismantle the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Long term the risk-benefit analysis of most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper). By most I countries I mean the the 150+ not under direct US sphere of influence. Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      > most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper) cheaper yes, but not really more advanced. (speaking of their RAN technology as well as their O&M plane, also their cloud is a clusterfcuk) > Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided. could you elaborate a bit more please? My understanding was that Australia, NZ, and UK were all aligned with the narrative pushed by the US. Which leaves Canada?
      - dirtyid 8y ago
        Australia was firm ban before US push due to past strains with China. US is obviously going to ban. UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow allies room to breath and "make independent" decision soon followed. China hit Australia with some coal ban, Canada with canola oil (over Meng extradition). I think everyone's just trying to manage the situation until after US-China trade deal settles. UK needs Chinese money because of Brexit. NZ also needs Chinese money and has... nothing much to steal. Canada... well I don't think we can hand Meng over to US and ban Huawei without being in the penalty box forever. Unrelated Poland wants to US base to buffer against Russia, they came down hard on Huawei because US won't base with Huawei infrastructure. Hence Germany considering Huawei is causing a lot of tension with all the US bases. Shouldn't have spied on Merkel I guess. It's all a mess.
- plugger 8y ago
  I also find Huawei's position quite rich given they built their product stack from stealing Nortel IP in the 2000s.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-na... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-revolution-based-trade-secret-theft/id=85377/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re... https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-from-the-us-nothing-new-in-pinching-each-other-s-best-ideas-1.3462381?mode=amp https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-f... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...
    - jug 8y ago
      This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        Let me pick your argument apart: > This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic. So, we are supposed to accept the following: - criticizing China, a relatively poor country, for stealing IP is OK. The world must confront China on these practices - the US has the high ground, since it is not stealing IP (now) Now I point out that the US has reached its current position as tech leader by doing roughly the same, and basically you tell me - we are not talking about the US - what the US did decades (centuries?) ago is not the topic of discussion, and it is not relevant to the discussion How is my evidence not relevant to the discussion? Now let me try to clarify what I am saying: The technology lead that US has has been achieved largely by doing what the US is trying to prevent other countries from doing now. This technology lead has a huge impact on the world (the American tax), and the world should refuse to pay it. The world should follow exactly the same approach that the US followed in the past: disregard the rules, and concentrate on their own interests. Because the system is rigged. Drawing rules once you have achieved a dominant position, and trying to enforce them in order for others to remain behind and continue paying the tax to the tech leader is not in the interest of the world. Once we have a balanced situation, you can think about putting rules for everybody to follow. "Everybody" means that there must be an independent organization, not politicized, in charged of enforcing the rules.
- ratling 8y ago
  Yeah all of Huawei’s complaining is a joke. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re being strongly requested to push this line by Chinese intelligence. If I am not doing business in China, Russia, Vietnam, or South America the first thing I do in any environment is block those countries and LACNIC. Instantly my production security alerts drop by 2/3 and I get to sleep at night.
stevefan1999 8y ago
And I believe westerners could start a class action on Huawei as well
- infinity0 8y ago
  Over what? For taking yerr jerbs?
  - bordercases 8y ago
    Have you been following Huawei in the news?
    - ionised 8y ago
      Nope.
      - bordercases 8y ago
        Ignorance is bliss! I'm glad for you.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - stevefan1999 8y ago
    Well, to be honest I'm a Chinese, so it may sound weird but I was just predicting the counterattack US will commit. Therefore no, I won't take away nobody's job. -- (off topic) By the way, China is commencing Two Sessions/Lianghui[1] recently, so I believe what Huawei did is just right on the political time. Perhaps we need not to over-react around this period about what's happening in China; certainly Huawei will chicken out after then. Also, there are numerous anonymous reports that GFW is now on steroid, rendering "wall climbing"[2] harder but not impossible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianghui https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianghui [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...
TaylorGood 8y ago
Is it me or has Huawei only appeared in media the last few months? All my years of reading HN, etc. and no recollection until recent controvery. Feels like they’ve managed to stir many waters in record time. For a company founded in 1987, what gave?
- mmanfrin 8y ago
  Huawei made the Nexus 8P and has been in the news pretty regularly over the past few years. There has been a lot of recent media coverage because of this issue. You have been hearing more about them because there has been more newsworthy events, but they have been in the news for a while.
  - stonekyx 8y ago
    Maybe you mean Nexus 6P?
- rakoo 8y ago
  Huawei, and the Chinese industry in general is at the forefront of 5G coming soon, and the West is mad that China can be more advanced than them and scared that all the equipment we use for deploying 5G is from them and, consequently, full of (not backdoors) spying capabilities. As someone whose country isn't part of five eyes, the hypocrisy makes me quietly laugh. (Edit: updated for less gratuitous accusations)
  - geowwy 8y ago
    The issue is not back doors in my opinion. It's more that the US is expecting 5G to be big (really big) and they don't want to world relying on China for their infrastructure. It's bad for (America's) national security and it gives China too much clout.
    - plugger 8y ago
      ESPECIALLY in Five Eyes locales.
    - 8y ago
techie128 8y ago
It is unbelievable that Huawei can do this in US and pretty much in any democratic country. The reverse is absolutely not true. The Chinese government has used every tool at its disposal to make life miserable for foreign competitors - see Google's exit, AWS, Apple, Uber and countless other companies were / are still being harassed. When was the last time a foreign company won a court case in China against its local competitor and Chinese government took any adverse action against the local company?
- TobbenTM 8y ago
  So do you want us all to sink to their level, or actually be the democratic countries we pretend to be?
  - cthor 8y ago
    The correct response to defectbot is defecting back
  - sudden 8y ago
    Excactly. The comments here are baffling.
  - atoav 8y ago
    What would be the most american answer to this question?
    - ionised 8y ago
      Whatever makes the most money.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  The courts interpret the law, the government can pass a law to level the playing field
grwthckrmstr 8y ago
How come nobody talks about the NSA or other US secret agencies to spy on people while simultaneously dissing Huawei for "allegedly" building backdoors to spy on the public? Help.me.understand...
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  None of the 5g infrastructure providers are American. The choice isn’t between Huawei and an American company.. it’s between Huawei and a European or Japanese company.

67 points by artemiszx 8y ago

> “The actual and intended effect of these prohibitions is to bar Huawei from significant segments of the U.S. market for telecommunications equipment and services, thereby inflicting immediate and ongoing economic, competitive, and reputational harms on Huawei,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the suit. This is incredulously ironic coming from a Chinese company. China, who sets up just about every barrier imaginable to foreign companies. Do they also lobby the Chinese government in favor of easing restrictions on those foreign businesses? I'm not saying we should follow their lead or really commenting on the merits at all, but I just find these times to be quite strange & humorous indeed.

pyrale 8y ago
I don't see what is ironic about a company playing along with international trade rules set by the US, a country that also defends their internal market (e.g. buy american act, recent tariffs on steel, etc.)
thetechlead 8y ago
You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. In most areas, whatever restrictions/laws on foreign businesses, are also put on Chinese companies (private). Most foreign companies lost Chinese market due to fierce competition from local counterparts, not any imaginable barrier. Back in 2000s, Chinese government even gave green light when Huawei tried to sell [ref] itself to Motorola, but only been turned down by the American side, and in the past few months Huawei ascends from nowhere to the #1 target of US spy agencies. See the irony? edit ref: https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811663 https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811...
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. Is there any difference, really, specially if said company is a corporate arm of China's military?
  - thisgoodlife 8y ago
    wait, what? Isn't Huawei a private company?
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
      Why don't you understand the difference between appearances and reality? It's not a hard concept to understand. China is a dictatorship, a very successful and controlling one. You don't get to do much, without the Chinese government approving it. You do what they want when they want or else. This is why all the really big companies are run by party members. Saying they're aren't in bed with each other and the government isn't in overall control is like claiming a 5-year-old is free to do whatever they want. While it may look like it, at any time the parent can intervene to prevent the child from doing something they don't want.
    - khuey 8y ago
      Nobody knows. The ownership structure of Huawei is extremely obfuscated and it has a dual share class system where the employee shares have no voting rights.
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      Huawei is the textbook example of how Chinese government own "private". See, for example, http://csis.org/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Huawei_casestudy_Web.pdf http://csis.org/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Hua... It is very common to have a "private" company, a party division and government department share a same registration address / contact person in China.
  - entity345 8y ago
    Nortel once had a CEO that was a former US Navy Admiral. Was Nortel a corporate arm of the US military? Edit: I flagged your comment because it's fake news and because you downvote anyone who do not agree.
- DeonPenny 8y ago
  China ecosystem isn't anymore competitive than anyone elses. You notice all the founders of these chinese tech companies are also in the CCP
- ratling 8y ago
  They are the same thing. You don’t do business in China without playing ball with the state.
  - jewelry_wolf 8y ago
    Don't you think that Huawei couldn't do business in US because it couldn't play the ball with the US government? LOL
    - ratling 8y ago
      Change their entire business model and act as a trojan horse for the US government? No that won't fly in the US (yes I'm aware of NSLs, there's a significant difference in degrees). In China that's standard procedure. Party says you switch up everything you're doing for their whims you do it.
- ddoolin 8y ago
  Off-topic, but are you the same techlead from YouTube?
rjf72 8y ago
Economic systems aren't built on benevolence. The reason the US has the economic system it does is because they believe it to be the most 'effective' system by various metrics. Incidentally that's the exact same reason that China has the system it does. As a comparable example the reason the founding fathers built freedom of speech deep into the US constitution was not because they liked people saying naughty or unpopular things, but because they felt that systems in which those in power could control what those out of power could say was counter-productive to building and maintaining a strong nation. We do these things not because they are 'good' but because they are optimal. That's what makes this issue so interesting. On paper we've fully embraced globalism while China has embraced outward globalism and inward nationalism. In reality the US market is still completely dominated by US companies or by companies from 'friendly' nations. E.g. in smartphones South Korea and USA make up the vast majority of all sales. But now 'unfriendly' nations are increasingly creating products that are becoming not only competitive but in some cases industry leading. So we find ourselves in the position of countries such as China. Do you allow companies from 'unfriendly' nations to setup and start on what may be a path to dominance, or do you give unfair preference to domestic/'friendly' products? We never had this issue before because final product competition from 'unfriendly' nations was negligible! And this is before you get into all the intelligence intrigue going on behind the scenes. The NSA has stated they have access to "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" [1] on the products of 'participating' companies including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others. Suffice to say companies such as Huawei are less likely to 'participate' in such activities. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
ganoushoreilly 8y ago
It's definitely a case of using the somewhat fair US court systems to enforce a do as we say not as we do scenario. I imagine the USG will envoke national security protections to limit exposure of any information as they have in the past. I don't really see this case going anywhere, more so with EU countries making similar claims and allegations of their operating practices.
- dirtyid 8y ago
  IMO Huawei's just seeking to rehabilitate their image, if the US refuses to publicly release evidence that contradicts the preponderance of sources that couldn't find back doors, then the entire US campaign against Huawei can be dismissed as a smear campaign. It's going to make US look dirty/petty and allows Huawei/China to save face. Huawei shares source code with GCHQ and US have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing, it wouldn't surprise me if there's actually nothing. Of course the concern is future potential risk, and that's valid. But the short term concern is to dismantle the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Long term the risk-benefit analysis of most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper). By most I countries I mean the the 150+ not under direct US sphere of influence. Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    > most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper) cheaper yes, but not really more advanced. (speaking of their RAN technology as well as their O&M plane, also their cloud is a clusterfcuk) > Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided. could you elaborate a bit more please? My understanding was that Australia, NZ, and UK were all aligned with the narrative pushed by the US. Which leaves Canada?
    - dirtyid 8y ago
      Australia was firm ban before US push due to past strains with China. US is obviously going to ban. UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow allies room to breath and "make independent" decision soon followed. China hit Australia with some coal ban, Canada with canola oil (over Meng extradition). I think everyone's just trying to manage the situation until after US-China trade deal settles. UK needs Chinese money because of Brexit. NZ also needs Chinese money and has... nothing much to steal. Canada... well I don't think we can hand Meng over to US and ban Huawei without being in the penalty box forever. Unrelated Poland wants to US base to buffer against Russia, they came down hard on Huawei because US won't base with Huawei infrastructure. Hence Germany considering Huawei is causing a lot of tension with all the US bases. Shouldn't have spied on Merkel I guess. It's all a mess.
plugger 8y ago
I also find Huawei's position quite rich given they built their product stack from stealing Nortel IP in the 2000s.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-na... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-revolution-based-trade-secret-theft/id=85377/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re... https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-from-the-us-nothing-new-in-pinching-each-other-s-best-ideas-1.3462381?mode=amp https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-f... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy-and-fraud-propelled-the-u-s-industrial-revolution https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...
  - jug 8y ago
    This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      Let me pick your argument apart: > This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic. So, we are supposed to accept the following: - criticizing China, a relatively poor country, for stealing IP is OK. The world must confront China on these practices - the US has the high ground, since it is not stealing IP (now) Now I point out that the US has reached its current position as tech leader by doing roughly the same, and basically you tell me - we are not talking about the US - what the US did decades (centuries?) ago is not the topic of discussion, and it is not relevant to the discussion How is my evidence not relevant to the discussion? Now let me try to clarify what I am saying: The technology lead that US has has been achieved largely by doing what the US is trying to prevent other countries from doing now. This technology lead has a huge impact on the world (the American tax), and the world should refuse to pay it. The world should follow exactly the same approach that the US followed in the past: disregard the rules, and concentrate on their own interests. Because the system is rigged. Drawing rules once you have achieved a dominant position, and trying to enforce them in order for others to remain behind and continue paying the tax to the tech leader is not in the interest of the world. Once we have a balanced situation, you can think about putting rules for everybody to follow. "Everybody" means that there must be an independent organization, not politicized, in charged of enforcing the rules.
ratling 8y ago
Yeah all of Huawei’s complaining is a joke. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re being strongly requested to push this line by Chinese intelligence. If I am not doing business in China, Russia, Vietnam, or South America the first thing I do in any environment is block those countries and LACNIC. Instantly my production security alerts drop by 2/3 and I get to sleep at night.

stevefan1999 8y ago

And I believe westerners could start a class action on Huawei as well

infinity0 8y ago
Over what? For taking yerr jerbs?
- bordercases 8y ago
  Have you been following Huawei in the news?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Nope.
    - bordercases 8y ago
      Ignorance is bliss! I'm glad for you.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- stevefan1999 8y ago
  Well, to be honest I'm a Chinese, so it may sound weird but I was just predicting the counterattack US will commit. Therefore no, I won't take away nobody's job. -- (off topic) By the way, China is commencing Two Sessions/Lianghui[1] recently, so I believe what Huawei did is just right on the political time. Perhaps we need not to over-react around this period about what's happening in China; certainly Huawei will chicken out after then. Also, there are numerous anonymous reports that GFW is now on steroid, rendering "wall climbing"[2] harder but not impossible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianghui https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianghui [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...

TaylorGood 8y ago

Is it me or has Huawei only appeared in media the last few months? All my years of reading HN, etc. and no recollection until recent controvery. Feels like they’ve managed to stir many waters in record time. For a company founded in 1987, what gave?

mmanfrin 8y ago
Huawei made the Nexus 8P and has been in the news pretty regularly over the past few years. There has been a lot of recent media coverage because of this issue. You have been hearing more about them because there has been more newsworthy events, but they have been in the news for a while.
- stonekyx 8y ago
  Maybe you mean Nexus 6P?
rakoo 8y ago
Huawei, and the Chinese industry in general is at the forefront of 5G coming soon, and the West is mad that China can be more advanced than them and scared that all the equipment we use for deploying 5G is from them and, consequently, full of (not backdoors) spying capabilities. As someone whose country isn't part of five eyes, the hypocrisy makes me quietly laugh. (Edit: updated for less gratuitous accusations)
- geowwy 8y ago
  The issue is not back doors in my opinion. It's more that the US is expecting 5G to be big (really big) and they don't want to world relying on China for their infrastructure. It's bad for (America's) national security and it gives China too much clout.
  - plugger 8y ago
    ESPECIALLY in Five Eyes locales.
  - 8y ago

techie128 8y ago

It is unbelievable that Huawei can do this in US and pretty much in any democratic country. The reverse is absolutely not true. The Chinese government has used every tool at its disposal to make life miserable for foreign competitors - see Google's exit, AWS, Apple, Uber and countless other companies were / are still being harassed. When was the last time a foreign company won a court case in China against its local competitor and Chinese government took any adverse action against the local company?

TobbenTM 8y ago
So do you want us all to sink to their level, or actually be the democratic countries we pretend to be?
- cthor 8y ago
  The correct response to defectbot is defecting back
- sudden 8y ago
  Excactly. The comments here are baffling.
- atoav 8y ago
  What would be the most american answer to this question?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Whatever makes the most money.
zaphirplane 8y ago
The courts interpret the law, the government can pass a law to level the playing field

grwthckrmstr 8y ago

How come nobody talks about the NSA or other US secret agencies to spy on people while simultaneously dissing Huawei for "allegedly" building backdoors to spy on the public? Help.me.understand...

rgbrenner 8y ago
None of the 5g infrastructure providers are American. The choice isn’t between Huawei and an American company.. it’s between Huawei and a European or Japanese company.