17 ms·

A question to Europeans reading this- If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equip

A question to Europeans reading this- If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to Chinese officials, and Europeans had to use one or the other, which would you choose?

adventured 7y ago
How about a more realistic scenario instead. As an American, I choose European / EU 5G equipment in all scenarios over Chinese 5G equipment. I don't care what the cost is. Europe, broadly (other than Russia primarily), is aligned with the US in all the ways that matter and will continue to be. China is not in almost any regard. The sole things the US and China have in common is trade and that the next century will be defined by persistent US-China superpower tension all around the world and in most all respects.
- pc86 7y ago
  For most Americans "I don't care what the cost is" immediately makes it an unrealistic scenario. And if history is any indication, for the vast majority of Americans choosing a privacy-focused solution is usually an accident. Price is the determining factor almost always.
thefounder 7y ago
I think the answer would be none or both.
aliceryhl 7y ago
Between US and China? US, definitely. I don't exactly love the US, and would never want to live there, but China seems way more malicious than the US to me.
kube-system 7y ago
The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.
- baybal2 7y ago
  After NATO would be gone, they will be allies no longer
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Even if that is ever the case, US interests will still be way more aligned with Finland and Sweden than China.
    - gdy 7y ago
      How so? For one thing, Swedes are less and less excited by the stream of Middle Eastern migrants caused by American adventures there.
      - JonG123 7y ago
        Because we are all part of the Western family. Kiron Skinner has put the point well > “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology and the United States hasn't had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the director of policy planning at the State Department, said Monday evening at a security forum in Washington, D.C. ... > “The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family,” Skinner said, noting Karl Marx’s indebtedness to Western political ideas. “It’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”
      - T-A 7y ago
        https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/china-tries-to-put-sweden-on-ice/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/china-tries-to-put-sweden-on...
        gdy 7y ago
        Fascinating
        jotm 7y ago
        That's the point of the EU - defend interests of the union of relatively small countries against giants like China. NATO is only suited for military action, and who knows how long it's going to last anyway. Also, probably the point of whatever the fuck Russia is doing with the EAEU (really should've picked a better name if they want it to stick).
r6754dw 7y ago
Definitely the Chinese, simply because their foreign policy is much less violent than that of the US, and they don't try to forcefully export their political and economic system to other countries.
- tjpnz 7y ago
  Belt and Road Initiative
  - env123 7y ago
    Opium wars
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      Not the US
      - toohotatopic 7y ago
        But close: >Opium profits funded many leading Boston institutions. Thomas Perkins and a brother helped found Massachusetts General Hospital, left, and Perkins donated one of his homes for a new school that ... https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/07/31/opium-boston-hi...
- throwaway17_17 7y ago
  Because the fact that China has not engaged in non-local applications of violence, they must be better than the US? That seems to be an amazingly narrow standard, because by that measure any country which carries out atrocities on its own population is 'better' than the US. I understand, even if I may not agree, some individual's dislike of American foreign policy, but to equate America's actions in the last 20 years at a global level with a nation-state which is (according to press reports) imprisoning and potentially torturing and killing those of its own population who meet certain ethnic and demographic criteria seems absent any amount of perspective.
cjfd 7y ago
The US, I suppose.... The thing with back doors is that others might also find them so it is quite unsafe in any case. Also, the future is unpredictable so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one?
- pc86 7y ago
  > so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one? Geopolitics is much less unpredictable than "the future." Even the current administration is not so short-sighted to alienate the US to the point of having no powerful allies. If Europe is not considered an ally (it is, not "more or less," it 100% is), where would the US turn? Even if you take a scenario where Trump and Russia are allies, and the US positions itself closer to Russia, Russia's allies are anathema to US interests and ideals, and will be for the foreseeable future. I just can't see any reality outside of borderline sci-fi where the US is not a close ally to just about every Western European country.
  - cjfd 7y ago
    One could ask why the US and european countries are allies. I think it is because both are technologically advanced, both are rich, both are societies with human rights, both are democratic. (Relatively speaking, at least.) These things can change. Now that I name four factors it may sounds like a lot would need to change. But the first two as well as the second two are closely related. And at some point the former two are also related to the latter two. If China wants to keeps developing it will at some point need to improve its human rights situation as well.
    - JonG123 7y ago
      All the factors you mentioned are contingent factors that can change, but what can't change is common (recent) ancestry > “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology and the United States hasn't had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the director of policy planning at the State Department, said Monday evening at a security forum in Washington, D.C. ... > “The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family,” Skinner said, noting Karl Marx’s indebtedness to Western political ideas. “It’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”
bloak 7y ago
The question is insufficiently precise. Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Whether the European citizens want to be spied on is another matter. If you're a European citizen or company you might well prefer to be spied on by the Chinese because there's little danger of the Chinese getting you kidnapped/extradited. Also, if your competitors and business contacts are more US than Chinese then the possibility of Chinese commercial espionage is perhaps less worrying than the possibility of US commercial espionage. It seems likely that US agencies sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I'm thinking more of contract negotiations than technological secrets, of course. Getting equipment from several suppliers seems like the best plan, generally. You can then play them off against each other not just for price but also for openness and forcing the supplier to allow security audits. I've heard that Huawei has been very helpful in that respect, because of the pressure they're under.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I've always wondered how that works so that employees dont know about the gov involvement. I suppose they could hire a "consultant", but someone in the company still needs to know dont they?
- eternalny1 7y ago
  > Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Bingo, data sharing agreements between intelligence services. NSA can't spy on US citizens but GCHQ can, and GCHQ can't spy ok UK citizens but NSA can. Then just come up with a sharing agreement, and you're "golden". It's all ridiculous.
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    Five Eyes sees all
zyxzevn 7y ago
A choice between two evils... Hmmmm..
michaelt 7y ago
A cynic would say America probably already has half a dozen back doors, so what's one more? There's no point choosing a Chinese back door over an American one if people you talk to are going to entrust your private messages to gmail/ icloud/ aws/ backblaze/ whatsapp.
oaiey 7y ago
The answer is simple: do not buy foreign made network technology. That is difficult but the intra European market (if there is trust there) should be big enough for e.g. Ericsson to keep up their Network tech group
Kon5ole 7y ago
Answer from one European individual - USA of course. It doesn't even require a split second of consideration for me. The major and decisive difference between USA and China is not what they have done, are doing or might do. It is simply that the USA is a democracy and China is not. In the USA, most of the people in positions of power /have to leave that position/ and /can't do whatever they want/ even when they have it. That fact alone makes all the difference and is so substantial that it in my mind totally invalidates any whataboutism in this question and any other comparison between the USA and any dictatorship. Even if a democracy happens to do more evil things in a period of time than a dictatorship, they are the better choice simply because they are a democracy and thus enables the people to both protest and also actually end the evil, through the legal system in the nation. (This does not mean that evil actions are OK when democracies are guilty of them of course, I'm not saying that.) If and when the day comes that China has had at least two transfers of power to new leaders as a result of internationally observed and validated democratic elections by the people of China, then it would be something to think about. But not as of now. Based on the premise that I have to choose a spying nation, of course, which I'd rather not do in real life! :)
throwawaymanbot 7y ago
Due to the Current US Administration.. I would say European!

adventured 7y ago

How about a more realistic scenario instead. As an American, I choose European / EU 5G equipment in all scenarios over Chinese 5G equipment. I don't care what the cost is. Europe, broadly (other than Russia primarily), is aligned with the US in all the ways that matter and will continue to be. China is not in almost any regard. The sole things the US and China have in common is trade and that the next century will be defined by persistent US-China superpower tension all around the world and in most all respects.

pc86 7y ago
For most Americans "I don't care what the cost is" immediately makes it an unrealistic scenario. And if history is any indication, for the vast majority of Americans choosing a privacy-focused solution is usually an accident. Price is the determining factor almost always.

thefounder 7y ago

I think the answer would be none or both.

aliceryhl 7y ago

Between US and China? US, definitely. I don't exactly love the US, and would never want to live there, but China seems way more malicious than the US to me.

kube-system 7y ago

The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.

baybal2 7y ago
After NATO would be gone, they will be allies no longer
- kube-system 7y ago
  Even if that is ever the case, US interests will still be way more aligned with Finland and Sweden than China.
  - gdy 7y ago
    How so? For one thing, Swedes are less and less excited by the stream of Middle Eastern migrants caused by American adventures there.
    - JonG123 7y ago
      Because we are all part of the Western family. Kiron Skinner has put the point well > “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology and the United States hasn't had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the director of policy planning at the State Department, said Monday evening at a security forum in Washington, D.C. ... > “The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family,” Skinner said, noting Karl Marx’s indebtedness to Western political ideas. “It’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”
    - T-A 7y ago
      https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/china-tries-to-put-sweden-on-ice/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/china-tries-to-put-sweden-on...
      - gdy 7y ago
        Fascinating
      - jotm 7y ago
        That's the point of the EU - defend interests of the union of relatively small countries against giants like China. NATO is only suited for military action, and who knows how long it's going to last anyway. Also, probably the point of whatever the fuck Russia is doing with the EAEU (really should've picked a better name if they want it to stick).

r6754dw 7y ago

Definitely the Chinese, simply because their foreign policy is much less violent than that of the US, and they don't try to forcefully export their political and economic system to other countries.

tjpnz 7y ago
Belt and Road Initiative
- env123 7y ago
  Opium wars
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Not the US
    - toohotatopic 7y ago
      But close: >Opium profits funded many leading Boston institutions. Thomas Perkins and a brother helped found Massachusetts General Hospital, left, and Perkins donated one of his homes for a new school that ... https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/07/31/opium-boston-history https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/07/31/opium-boston-hi...
throwaway17_17 7y ago
Because the fact that China has not engaged in non-local applications of violence, they must be better than the US? That seems to be an amazingly narrow standard, because by that measure any country which carries out atrocities on its own population is 'better' than the US. I understand, even if I may not agree, some individual's dislike of American foreign policy, but to equate America's actions in the last 20 years at a global level with a nation-state which is (according to press reports) imprisoning and potentially torturing and killing those of its own population who meet certain ethnic and demographic criteria seems absent any amount of perspective.

cjfd 7y ago

The US, I suppose.... The thing with back doors is that others might also find them so it is quite unsafe in any case. Also, the future is unpredictable so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one?

pc86 7y ago
> so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one? Geopolitics is much less unpredictable than "the future." Even the current administration is not so short-sighted to alienate the US to the point of having no powerful allies. If Europe is not considered an ally (it is, not "more or less," it 100% is), where would the US turn? Even if you take a scenario where Trump and Russia are allies, and the US positions itself closer to Russia, Russia's allies are anathema to US interests and ideals, and will be for the foreseeable future. I just can't see any reality outside of borderline sci-fi where the US is not a close ally to just about every Western European country.
- cjfd 7y ago
  One could ask why the US and european countries are allies. I think it is because both are technologically advanced, both are rich, both are societies with human rights, both are democratic. (Relatively speaking, at least.) These things can change. Now that I name four factors it may sounds like a lot would need to change. But the first two as well as the second two are closely related. And at some point the former two are also related to the latter two. If China wants to keeps developing it will at some point need to improve its human rights situation as well.
  - JonG123 7y ago
    All the factors you mentioned are contingent factors that can change, but what can't change is common (recent) ancestry > “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology and the United States hasn't had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the director of policy planning at the State Department, said Monday evening at a security forum in Washington, D.C. ... > “The Soviet Union and that competition, in a way it was a fight within the Western family,” Skinner said, noting Karl Marx’s indebtedness to Western political ideas. “It’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”

bloak 7y ago

The question is insufficiently precise. Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Whether the European citizens want to be spied on is another matter. If you're a European citizen or company you might well prefer to be spied on by the Chinese because there's little danger of the Chinese getting you kidnapped/extradited. Also, if your competitors and business contacts are more US than Chinese then the possibility of Chinese commercial espionage is perhaps less worrying than the possibility of US commercial espionage. It seems likely that US agencies sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I'm thinking more of contract negotiations than technological secrets, of course. Getting equipment from several suppliers seems like the best plan, generally. You can then play them off against each other not just for price but also for openness and forcing the supplier to allow security audits. I've heard that Huawei has been very helpful in that respect, because of the pressure they're under.

phkahler 7y ago
>> sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I've always wondered how that works so that employees dont know about the gov involvement. I suppose they could hire a "consultant", but someone in the company still needs to know dont they?
eternalny1 7y ago
> Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Bingo, data sharing agreements between intelligence services. NSA can't spy on US citizens but GCHQ can, and GCHQ can't spy ok UK citizens but NSA can. Then just come up with a sharing agreement, and you're "golden". It's all ridiculous.
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  Five Eyes sees all

zyxzevn 7y ago

A choice between two evils... Hmmmm..

michaelt 7y ago

A cynic would say America probably already has half a dozen back doors, so what's one more? There's no point choosing a Chinese back door over an American one if people you talk to are going to entrust your private messages to gmail/ icloud/ aws/ backblaze/ whatsapp.

oaiey 7y ago

The answer is simple: do not buy foreign made network technology. That is difficult but the intra European market (if there is trust there) should be big enough for e.g. Ericsson to keep up their Network tech group

Kon5ole 7y ago

Answer from one European individual - USA of course. It doesn't even require a split second of consideration for me. The major and decisive difference between USA and China is not what they have done, are doing or might do. It is simply that the USA is a democracy and China is not. In the USA, most of the people in positions of power /have to leave that position/ and /can't do whatever they want/ even when they have it. That fact alone makes all the difference and is so substantial that it in my mind totally invalidates any whataboutism in this question and any other comparison between the USA and any dictatorship. Even if a democracy happens to do more evil things in a period of time than a dictatorship, they are the better choice simply because they are a democracy and thus enables the people to both protest and also actually end the evil, through the legal system in the nation. (This does not mean that evil actions are OK when democracies are guilty of them of course, I'm not saying that.) If and when the day comes that China has had at least two transfers of power to new leaders as a result of internationally observed and validated democratic elections by the people of China, then it would be something to think about. But not as of now. Based on the premise that I have to choose a spying nation, of course, which I'd rather not do in real life! :)

throwawaymanbot 7y ago

Due to the Current US Administration.. I would say European!