5 ms·

I don’t understand why this story is such a big deal, but it keeps getting covered. There are no US companies that compete with Huawei’s 5G technology, so my g

I don’t understand why this story is such a big deal, but it keeps getting covered. There are no US companies that compete with Huawei’s 5G technology, so my government is going after them anyway they can. Seems simple enough to me. That said, there is another factor: Huawei smartphones sort of compete with Apple gear, but at lower prices. This also helps a US company (Apple). It think it is fairly common that governments do back-flips to help domestic industries. The Chinese government certainly helps their industries.

roenxi 7y ago
To supplement your comment; all the things in being alleged may well be true, but none of it seems unusual or particularly unexpected. It does seem quite likely that it has only become an issue because Huawei is out-competing US companies. Although I suspect the US will discover their treatment of Meng Wanzhou is crossing a line. The idea that the US can regulate commerce between a Chinese company and an Iranian country is breathtakingly audacious and the idea that the US can go after individuals on this pretext is outrageous. If someone pulled this stunt on them and black-bagged Tim Cook for violating labour laws they might start to realise they've opened a can of worms.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Do you think that they wouldn't be taking a hard look at them otherwise? It seems like scrutiny and suspicion goes back over a decade, but it could all be pretext. I assume we both agree that fully open hardware and software is better here, but given that I guess it's just a matter of which country you're most okay with giving a backdoor into your private life. I guess I still trust the US in this regard more than China, even with the NSA leaks. But I definitely think that if I was individually targeted they'd get whatever they want. Well, either country really.
- JCharante 7y ago
  Isn't it relating to fraud because they lied about the transactions, as in the US is perfectly fine if third parties conduct trade with blacklisted entities, but the third parties have to suffer the consequences of those trades (such as they themselves getting blacklisted).
  - roenxi 7y ago
    That might be true but rates as a bit of a "so what?" in practice. I'm sure all i-s are dotted and t-s crossed under US law. However, compare and contrast this to the US law lovingly nicknamed 'Hague Invasion Act' [0] - sovereign states are not expected to quietly sit down and take it quietly when foreigners start harassing their authority figures. It certainly has terrible optics - the US decides to bully a strategically threatening Chinese company with superior capability? That is likely to disrupt their extensive data gathering and surveillance operations? In the middle of trade talks? Whatever legal quibbling they want to argue over, it is a tough sell as a rules-based decision. It looks highly political. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
agent00f 7y ago
American exceptional is pretty much a religion in the Christan judeo tradition whereby believers possess any amount of faith that they're the good guys and anyone with conflicting interests is evil.

roenxi 7y ago

To supplement your comment; all the things in being alleged may well be true, but none of it seems unusual or particularly unexpected. It does seem quite likely that it has only become an issue because Huawei is out-competing US companies. Although I suspect the US will discover their treatment of Meng Wanzhou is crossing a line. The idea that the US can regulate commerce between a Chinese company and an Iranian country is breathtakingly audacious and the idea that the US can go after individuals on this pretext is outrageous. If someone pulled this stunt on them and black-bagged Tim Cook for violating labour laws they might start to realise they've opened a can of worms.

neltnerb 7y ago
Do you think that they wouldn't be taking a hard look at them otherwise? It seems like scrutiny and suspicion goes back over a decade, but it could all be pretext. I assume we both agree that fully open hardware and software is better here, but given that I guess it's just a matter of which country you're most okay with giving a backdoor into your private life. I guess I still trust the US in this regard more than China, even with the NSA leaks. But I definitely think that if I was individually targeted they'd get whatever they want. Well, either country really.
JCharante 7y ago
Isn't it relating to fraud because they lied about the transactions, as in the US is perfectly fine if third parties conduct trade with blacklisted entities, but the third parties have to suffer the consequences of those trades (such as they themselves getting blacklisted).
- roenxi 7y ago
  That might be true but rates as a bit of a "so what?" in practice. I'm sure all i-s are dotted and t-s crossed under US law. However, compare and contrast this to the US law lovingly nicknamed 'Hague Invasion Act' [0] - sovereign states are not expected to quietly sit down and take it quietly when foreigners start harassing their authority figures. It certainly has terrible optics - the US decides to bully a strategically threatening Chinese company with superior capability? That is likely to disrupt their extensive data gathering and surveillance operations? In the middle of trade talks? Whatever legal quibbling they want to argue over, it is a tough sell as a rules-based decision. It looks highly political. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

agent00f 7y ago

American exceptional is pretty much a religion in the Christan judeo tradition whereby believers possess any amount of faith that they're the good guys and anyone with conflicting interests is evil.