8 ms·

> Some officials feel that the sales violate the spirit of the law and undermine government efforts to pressure Huawei, while others are more supportive because

> Some officials feel that the sales violate the spirit of the law and undermine government efforts to pressure Huawei, while others are more supportive because it lightens the blow of the ban for American corporations. It clearly does violate the spirit of the law and undermines government efforts, potential jeopardizing US national security. However, any corporations that legally circumvent this ban will have a competitive advantage, leading other corporations to follow.

deehouie 7y ago
The claim that dealing with Huawei "jeopardizes US national security" has little factual support. It is a political propaganda initiated in the Trump circle. Shame on those who perpetuate it, and shame on those who believe in it.
- lsh 7y ago
  There is so much evidence Huawei are a bad actor, and probably marching in lockstep with the Chinese government, that it has it's own very long Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    There are "Criticism of" articles for a lot of tech companies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace (surely an important page in this day and age) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google And the whopper is this: there is an entire category devoted to pages criticizing Google: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google And let's not forget the funnest Wikipedia "Criticism of" page: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Trump has openly stated that he's using Huawei as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/.... The "evidence" against Huawei always seems to be two cases that it settled 15+ years ago, plus the "Tappy" robot a few years back. They also may have indirectly done business with Iran, but they're a Chinese company, so doing business with Iran was legal under the laws of their country.
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      Your response to a list of evidence was to attack lists of evidence and then provide your own straw man list of evidence to then argue against?
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        Respond to the strongest version of the argument, not a straw man. My meaning was obvious. The above commenter pointed to the existence of a "very long Wikipedia page" criticizing Huawei as evidence that Huawei is a "bad actor." These sorts of "Criticism of" pages exist for many companies. Many of those pages are far more extensive than the page for Huawei. Are all those companies also "bad actors"? The existence of such a page in itself means nothing. If you actually look at the "Criticism of Huawei" page, it contains no evidence that Huawei has installed backdoors in its equipment. There are the accusations of the US government, and various vulnerabilities that have been discovered over time (and patched), but vulnerabilities and backdoors are different things. Then there are the various IP disputes. Tell me: which major tech company has not had multiple IP disputes over the past 20 years? The disputes that Huawei has been involved in are pretty minor, and the largest ones were 15+ years ago. We're in the middle of a moral panic, in which suddenly, were being bombarded by messages that Huawei and China are the worst things in the history of the planet. Huawei is a "bad actor," whatever that's supposed to mean. Google stole Oracle's copyrighted Java API? Samsung violated Apple's design patents and has to pay half a billion dollars? Small potatoes. But Huawei copied Cisco's implementation of strcmp 15 years ago? Bad actor!
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deehouie 7y ago
    You should read this wiki in its entirety bef you use it as evidence to support the claim. It cites patent infringements, IP thefts, and then allegations by China's political enemies about the possible backdoors in its equipments. Huawei equipments may have vulnerabilities, but that doesn't constitute evidence that it has malicious intention to spy on its customers. Many Western telecom make unsafe products with different degree of vulnerability. How come they don't raise the same degree of concerns
    - atoav 7y ago
      Many US vendors have been caught implementing backdoors for the NSA. So from a europerspective the questions is: which one do you want to spy on you? Both have very likely interests in doing so and for one we have definitive proof that they did that also towards nations they call “friends”. If the US warns about Huawei it probably does so because that is what the US would do in China’s place.
      - CapricornNoble 7y ago
        Yeah, this was the gist of my comments the last time I posted re:Huawei on HN. You can either have the US backdoor your network, or you can have China backdoor your network. Which you chose is based on your risk assessment of which state actor poses the greatest threat to your operations (whether those are business, personal, or even military in nature hardly matters).
        Tsubasachan 7y ago
        If Huawei delivers good products for less money I have no doubt many will go with them. Meanwhile US companies can raise their prices thanks to the monopoly the US government just handed them.
        wolco 7y ago
        I would think a European wouldn't want either and something else will take over that market.
  - deehouie 7y ago
    It may be a bad actor in the sense of an aggressive tech giant employing unconventional means to make profit and take market share. But there is zero evidence in the wiki that Huawei is a national security threat. The only evidence it's a national security threat is that it is a Chinese company.
    - lsh 7y ago
      I disagree
    - SoylentYellow 7y ago
      The fact it is a Chinese company is all the evidence needed. Huawei is subject to China's 2015 National Security Law, which grants the Chinese government the power to force Chinese companies to provide assistance in matters of national security. In other words, if Chinese intelligence wanted Huawei to secretly introduce a backdoor, it would be a legal order and unlawful for Huawei to resist. What makes you think the US needs to have evidence beyond that when this impacts critical infrastructure and national security? Why take the risk?
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        That would be an argument for not allowing Huawei to supply equipment for the US 5G network.* It is not, however, an argument for banning American companies from doing business with Huawei. As the American head of the US-China Business Council said, it's one thing to ban Huawei from the US, but banning American companies from selling equipment to Huawei is more like "murder": https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/11/trump-trying-to-murder-huawei-head-of-us-china-business-council.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/11/trump-trying-to-murder... * An analogous argument could be used, of course, by other countries to justify banning American hardware in their own critical systems.
      - erklik 7y ago
        I am curious. Would the same be true for CSIRO? Considering that Austalia has introduced laws requiring any company to provide them with a backdoor that does not notify the user and the developer is essentially under a gag-order?
  - philjohn 7y ago
    And yet the British vet the code and hardware of Huawei components used in UK networks and, apart from sloppy coding, haven't found anything that backs up the "state sanctioned espionage" claims so breathlessly made by certain quarters.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cfarm 7y ago
You're not going to get rid of espionage. NSA has been doing this for years. The ban is purely a battle for who has more power and control. In the end, the user loses no matter what. Someone will be watching.
- iliketosleep 7y ago
  Of course espionage will continue and international rivals will resort to dirty tactics, this is a given. The only question is whose side you're on. I am surprised when US citizens or people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself against foreign espionage.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    > Of course espionage will continue and international rivals will resort to dirty tactics, this is a given. Those dirty foreigners and their dirty tactics. If only they could keep it all clean and above board like our good old fashioned home grown espionage.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      There is playing the great game and taking the piss China is taking the piss.
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    > people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself As an european, I properly couldn't care less about US defending itself, there is no higher moral ground compared to say China (Russia is a special case). We know about all the dirty unlawful watching, how we are considered less than american citizens in many ways etc. I mean we all get why you guys do it, it just has the same moral ground as Chinese doing it
    - adventured 7y ago
      I got a pretty good laugh out of you saying Russia is a special case (special because you're European). Different moral ground when it's a direct military threat in your own backyard. Unlike most/all countries in Europe, the US has truly global security interests. As the sole superpower it is in long-term security / defense partnerships all over the world, including in Asia, which pertains directly to the China situation. As the most prominent example, the world's third largest economy - Japan - has no real ability to defend itself from China in a conflict and depends almost entirely on the US for military security (including the US nuclear umbrella). Are the Europeans going to all rush to Asia to defend Japan and or South Korea in a conflict? No. They're not going to lift a finger to do anything (protest at the UN perhaps), and more realistically can't do anything even if they wanted to. So should the US abandon Japan re defense, pretend we have no security interest there at all? I don't think so. So no, it's not just the same as China doing it. That's merely the perspective of a European with only regional (the Russian special case) security concerns. North Korea and South Korea are also not on the same moral ground.
thefounder 7y ago
This is all about the trade war. The espionage pretext is just that: a pretext. US wants to keep everybody hostage to its military, its technology and its economy. This is not something new. The only change is that now the US admin uses a kind of zero tolerance policy and I believe it will fire back. The free trade is replaced by America First trade: we have the biggest military power and economy so you do it our way or you deal with the consequences. Personally I believe the policy reflects Trump's personality.
- mark_l_watson 7y ago
  While I agree with you, I would also like to point out that to protect our economy President George W Bush’s administration came up with the ‘axis of evil’ to economically fight three oil producing countries who had announced willingness to trade oil for currencies other than the US dollar. I think this is close to the same thing, really. Using our military might and pressure on allies to maintain an advantage. I personally believe that we must spend less on our military and more on education, new technologies, more efficient industrial systems, have firm but fair laws governing corporations. Capitalism can work long term if we have laws that are guardrails on what corporations can do and fight hard to be competitive with other countries on merits, not coercion.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    North Korea produces oil? Iran and Iraq, I totally agree, but DPKR is a snub to China.

deehouie 7y ago

The claim that dealing with Huawei "jeopardizes US national security" has little factual support. It is a political propaganda initiated in the Trump circle. Shame on those who perpetuate it, and shame on those who believe in it.

lsh 7y ago
There is so much evidence Huawei are a bad actor, and probably marching in lockstep with the Chinese government, that it has it's own very long Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  There are "Criticism of" articles for a lot of tech companies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Myspace (surely an important page in this day and age) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google And the whopper is this: there is an entire category devoted to pages criticizing Google: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticism_of_Google And let's not forget the funnest Wikipedia "Criticism of" page: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Trump has openly stated that he's using Huawei as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/tech/donald-trump-huawei-ban/.... The "evidence" against Huawei always seems to be two cases that it settled 15+ years ago, plus the "Tappy" robot a few years back. They also may have indirectly done business with Iran, but they're a Chinese company, so doing business with Iran was legal under the laws of their country.
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    Your response to a list of evidence was to attack lists of evidence and then provide your own straw man list of evidence to then argue against?
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      Respond to the strongest version of the argument, not a straw man. My meaning was obvious. The above commenter pointed to the existence of a "very long Wikipedia page" criticizing Huawei as evidence that Huawei is a "bad actor." These sorts of "Criticism of" pages exist for many companies. Many of those pages are far more extensive than the page for Huawei. Are all those companies also "bad actors"? The existence of such a page in itself means nothing. If you actually look at the "Criticism of Huawei" page, it contains no evidence that Huawei has installed backdoors in its equipment. There are the accusations of the US government, and various vulnerabilities that have been discovered over time (and patched), but vulnerabilities and backdoors are different things. Then there are the various IP disputes. Tell me: which major tech company has not had multiple IP disputes over the past 20 years? The disputes that Huawei has been involved in are pretty minor, and the largest ones were 15+ years ago. We're in the middle of a moral panic, in which suddenly, were being bombarded by messages that Huawei and China are the worst things in the history of the planet. Huawei is a "bad actor," whatever that's supposed to mean. Google stole Oracle's copyrighted Java API? Samsung violated Apple's design patents and has to pay half a billion dollars? Small potatoes. But Huawei copied Cisco's implementation of strcmp 15 years ago? Bad actor!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deehouie 7y ago
  You should read this wiki in its entirety bef you use it as evidence to support the claim. It cites patent infringements, IP thefts, and then allegations by China's political enemies about the possible backdoors in its equipments. Huawei equipments may have vulnerabilities, but that doesn't constitute evidence that it has malicious intention to spy on its customers. Many Western telecom make unsafe products with different degree of vulnerability. How come they don't raise the same degree of concerns
  - atoav 7y ago
    Many US vendors have been caught implementing backdoors for the NSA. So from a europerspective the questions is: which one do you want to spy on you? Both have very likely interests in doing so and for one we have definitive proof that they did that also towards nations they call “friends”. If the US warns about Huawei it probably does so because that is what the US would do in China’s place.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      Yeah, this was the gist of my comments the last time I posted re:Huawei on HN. You can either have the US backdoor your network, or you can have China backdoor your network. Which you chose is based on your risk assessment of which state actor poses the greatest threat to your operations (whether those are business, personal, or even military in nature hardly matters).
      - Tsubasachan 7y ago
        If Huawei delivers good products for less money I have no doubt many will go with them. Meanwhile US companies can raise their prices thanks to the monopoly the US government just handed them.
      - wolco 7y ago
        I would think a European wouldn't want either and something else will take over that market.
- deehouie 7y ago
  It may be a bad actor in the sense of an aggressive tech giant employing unconventional means to make profit and take market share. But there is zero evidence in the wiki that Huawei is a national security threat. The only evidence it's a national security threat is that it is a Chinese company.
  - lsh 7y ago
    I disagree
  - SoylentYellow 7y ago
    The fact it is a Chinese company is all the evidence needed. Huawei is subject to China's 2015 National Security Law, which grants the Chinese government the power to force Chinese companies to provide assistance in matters of national security. In other words, if Chinese intelligence wanted Huawei to secretly introduce a backdoor, it would be a legal order and unlawful for Huawei to resist. What makes you think the US needs to have evidence beyond that when this impacts critical infrastructure and national security? Why take the risk?
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      That would be an argument for not allowing Huawei to supply equipment for the US 5G network.* It is not, however, an argument for banning American companies from doing business with Huawei. As the American head of the US-China Business Council said, it's one thing to ban Huawei from the US, but banning American companies from selling equipment to Huawei is more like "murder": https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/11/trump-trying-to-murder-huawei-head-of-us-china-business-council.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/11/trump-trying-to-murder... * An analogous argument could be used, of course, by other countries to justify banning American hardware in their own critical systems.
    - erklik 7y ago
      I am curious. Would the same be true for CSIRO? Considering that Austalia has introduced laws requiring any company to provide them with a backdoor that does not notify the user and the developer is essentially under a gag-order?
- philjohn 7y ago
  And yet the British vet the code and hardware of Huawei components used in UK networks and, apart from sloppy coding, haven't found anything that backs up the "state sanctioned espionage" claims so breathlessly made by certain quarters.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cfarm 7y ago

You're not going to get rid of espionage. NSA has been doing this for years. The ban is purely a battle for who has more power and control. In the end, the user loses no matter what. Someone will be watching.

iliketosleep 7y ago
Of course espionage will continue and international rivals will resort to dirty tactics, this is a given. The only question is whose side you're on. I am surprised when US citizens or people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself against foreign espionage.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  > Of course espionage will continue and international rivals will resort to dirty tactics, this is a given. Those dirty foreigners and their dirty tactics. If only they could keep it all clean and above board like our good old fashioned home grown espionage.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    There is playing the great game and taking the piss China is taking the piss.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  > people of nations aligned with the US are critical of the US defending itself As an european, I properly couldn't care less about US defending itself, there is no higher moral ground compared to say China (Russia is a special case). We know about all the dirty unlawful watching, how we are considered less than american citizens in many ways etc. I mean we all get why you guys do it, it just has the same moral ground as Chinese doing it
  - adventured 7y ago
    I got a pretty good laugh out of you saying Russia is a special case (special because you're European). Different moral ground when it's a direct military threat in your own backyard. Unlike most/all countries in Europe, the US has truly global security interests. As the sole superpower it is in long-term security / defense partnerships all over the world, including in Asia, which pertains directly to the China situation. As the most prominent example, the world's third largest economy - Japan - has no real ability to defend itself from China in a conflict and depends almost entirely on the US for military security (including the US nuclear umbrella). Are the Europeans going to all rush to Asia to defend Japan and or South Korea in a conflict? No. They're not going to lift a finger to do anything (protest at the UN perhaps), and more realistically can't do anything even if they wanted to. So should the US abandon Japan re defense, pretend we have no security interest there at all? I don't think so. So no, it's not just the same as China doing it. That's merely the perspective of a European with only regional (the Russian special case) security concerns. North Korea and South Korea are also not on the same moral ground.

thefounder 7y ago

This is all about the trade war. The espionage pretext is just that: a pretext. US wants to keep everybody hostage to its military, its technology and its economy. This is not something new. The only change is that now the US admin uses a kind of zero tolerance policy and I believe it will fire back. The free trade is replaced by America First trade: we have the biggest military power and economy so you do it our way or you deal with the consequences. Personally I believe the policy reflects Trump's personality.

mark_l_watson 7y ago
While I agree with you, I would also like to point out that to protect our economy President George W Bush’s administration came up with the ‘axis of evil’ to economically fight three oil producing countries who had announced willingness to trade oil for currencies other than the US dollar. I think this is close to the same thing, really. Using our military might and pressure on allies to maintain an advantage. I personally believe that we must spend less on our military and more on education, new technologies, more efficient industrial systems, have firm but fair laws governing corporations. Capitalism can work long term if we have laws that are guardrails on what corporations can do and fight hard to be competitive with other countries on merits, not coercion.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  North Korea produces oil? Iran and Iraq, I totally agree, but DPKR is a snub to China.