4 ms·
Considering that two U.S. appeals courts have ruled that source code which was classed as a munition was protected by the First Amendment, I'm not too worried j
by DennisP 7y ago
Considering that two U.S. appeals courts have ruled that source code which was classed as a munition was protected by the First Amendment, I'm not too worried just yet.
Of course we have a lot of new judges so who knows.
- mc32 7y agoTrue, but aren’t conservative judges (not Joe and Jill public) apt to be more liberal in the interpretation of the 1A?
- StudentStuff 7y agoBunnie seems to fear this type of IP restriction but with regard to closed source chipset designs and proprietary hardware, which he views as key to continued innovation in China. I have met Bunnie, and he has a bit of a warped view of the world. I think it caused him to gloss over things like https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversight_board_savaging_annual_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi... where Huawei did not give a single shit about security in their cellular basestation codebase. Sure, Huawei will read CVEs and sometimes deal with them, but really basic things like updating OpenSSL libraries seem near impossible for Huawei. Their hardware is thus vulnerable to exploitation by any ill intentioned person wandering by :c Part of this is the whole stolen codebase problem, where Huawei (as Nortel's Chinese manufacturing partner) took their designs and code, without fully understanding them. They've been able to tack on a lot of neat stuff, but the underlying architecture is still not understood by their engineers.
- the_pwner224 7y agoAnd so is so much other US-produced or maintained hardware. Do we now ban outdated corporate websites which can be hacked and used to launch attacks on other servers? The Huawei ban is very clearly a political anti-China move, not one based on technical reasons.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoDo you not understand the part about Huawei’s rampant, Chinese-style IP theft directly contributing to the poor security of its products?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoI haven't ever seen any evidence of "rampant" IP theft by Huawei. Every time, it's the same one Cisco case that got settled 15 years ago, unsubstantiated claims about Nortel two decades ago, and T-Mobile's "Tappy" robot. This for a massive company with over $100 billion in revenue a year. If there were actually something to the characterization, you'd think there'd be more evidence. It's a bit like defining Google solely on the basis of Oracle's case and Apple's earlier claims of Android being an iOS clone.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoTry taking this position with, say, Samsung.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoI'm not sure I follow. Samsung was embroiled in a very bitter IP dispute with Apple, in which it was found to have violated Apple's patents, essentially copying the design of the iPhone, and ordered to pay over a half a billion dollars. Yet American companies aren't banned from doing business with Samsung, nor should they be.
- StudentStuff 7y ago
- someguydave 7y agore: judges - I'm not a lawyer but the recent Supreme Court decisions seem to be a shot across the bow for administrative rulemaking like the BIS ruling that Bunnie is quoting. It's conceivable that Huawai could sue the US and win in the Supreme Court and overturn these regulations - on the basis that Congress needs to pass a specific law to bind them, rather than allowing vague laws to be vaguely interpreted by executive agencies as they see fit.