3 ms·

I find it hilarious when reading news like these to remember that the official stance of US government is that their national security is endangered if that pho

I find it hilarious when reading news like these to remember that the official stance of US government is that their national security is endangered if that phone ships with Google Play. EDIT: It actually is national security (https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/trump-says-he-doesnt-want-to-do-business-with-huawei-due-to-national-security-threat/ https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/tru...)

mosselman 7y ago
I am not an expert, but I doubt that this is an accurate characterisation of the reasons for the ban. Isn’t this more about intellectual property issues and economic disagreements?
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  I think it is mostly political. When one uses Google Maps, he tells USA's 3-letter-agencies when they are. If Huawei replaces Google Maps with "Huawei Maps" then USA stops getting that info, and China gets that info. Now apply the same for emails, text messages, etc. I believe that even "innocuous" games (started playing AFKArena lately) collect the IP address of my phone and tell the lovely Chinese gov who I am, where I am, etc. (AFKArena policies have the word Tencent a lot in them).
  - mda 7y ago
    You imply security agencies have direct uncontrolled online access to Google maps personal data today, this is not true. There is due process to access private data and you can always have the option to enable, disable, delete it. Lets stick to the facts.
    - HenryBemis 7y ago
      You imply that they don't. If the Wikileaks/Snowden story, the AT&T (room 641A) story taught us anything is that we cannot place any reliance to any due process and that 3-letter agencies harvest anything they can, any way they can, without any respect to privacy (big laughter here) and due process. I am not trashing security agencies. I am merely stating that lines in the sand never seem to stopped them before and most likely won't stop them now (or in the future). Whether it could be the AT&T case, or a bribed sys/net admin, "they" want it all and they got the budgets to get it done.
- sharpneli 7y ago
  I’m under the impression that the entity list is for national security issues. Also there are direct quotes stating it is so (https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/trump-says-he-doesnt-want-to-do-business-with-huawei-due-to-national-security-threat/ https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/tru...) Sure in practical terms it is not used as such. This time it’s just ammunition for trade war. But taking it at it’s face value is more amusing.
amaccuish 7y ago
But Trump is willing to OK Huawei if China agrees to the US's demands. Weird isn't it, that it's not a massive problem if China agrees the the US's economic demands, that suddenly Huawei isn't a national security threat. Almost as if Huawei is not a national security threat and in the first place and it's all been made up to help Trump bully another China...

mosselman 7y ago

I am not an expert, but I doubt that this is an accurate characterisation of the reasons for the ban. Isn’t this more about intellectual property issues and economic disagreements?

HenryBemis 7y ago
I think it is mostly political. When one uses Google Maps, he tells USA's 3-letter-agencies when they are. If Huawei replaces Google Maps with "Huawei Maps" then USA stops getting that info, and China gets that info. Now apply the same for emails, text messages, etc. I believe that even "innocuous" games (started playing AFKArena lately) collect the IP address of my phone and tell the lovely Chinese gov who I am, where I am, etc. (AFKArena policies have the word Tencent a lot in them).
- mda 7y ago
  You imply security agencies have direct uncontrolled online access to Google maps personal data today, this is not true. There is due process to access private data and you can always have the option to enable, disable, delete it. Lets stick to the facts.
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    You imply that they don't. If the Wikileaks/Snowden story, the AT&T (room 641A) story taught us anything is that we cannot place any reliance to any due process and that 3-letter agencies harvest anything they can, any way they can, without any respect to privacy (big laughter here) and due process. I am not trashing security agencies. I am merely stating that lines in the sand never seem to stopped them before and most likely won't stop them now (or in the future). Whether it could be the AT&T case, or a bribed sys/net admin, "they" want it all and they got the budgets to get it done.
sharpneli 7y ago
I’m under the impression that the entity list is for national security issues. Also there are direct quotes stating it is so (https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/trump-says-he-doesnt-want-to-do-business-with-huawei-due-to-national-security-threat/ https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/tru...) Sure in practical terms it is not used as such. This time it’s just ammunition for trade war. But taking it at it’s face value is more amusing.

amaccuish 7y ago

But Trump is willing to OK Huawei if China agrees to the US's demands. Weird isn't it, that it's not a massive problem if China agrees the the US's economic demands, that suddenly Huawei isn't a national security threat. Almost as if Huawei is not a national security threat and in the first place and it's all been made up to help Trump bully another China...