6 ms·

It was. But Germany cooperated with the NSA on mass surveillance so that’s okay. The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts. So anti-CCP? Sounds good to me!
- Udik 6y ago
  Using "CCP" in place of "China" is a trend that started with the recent demonization of China. It appears you have been persuaded by the anti-China narrative to the point that you openly welcome more of it irrespectively of its factual basis.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - consumer451 6y ago
    > Using "CCP" in place of "China" is a trend that started with the recent demonization of China. I take exception to this as I have been trying to explain to everyone how evil the CCP is for many years. It is not recent. Using the term CCP is simply an attempt to accurately identify the problem, and not be lazy/racist by blaming things on "China."
    - onethought 6y ago
      I’m curious what the “evilness” is. Also, Hua wei isn’t the ccp. I’m sure there is influence for sure. Just like there is influence in US companies from government.
      - redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Also, Hua wei isn’t the ccp. I’m sure there is influence for sure Actually, the CCP controls all companies in China, and has agents on site in each company over about 40 employees. The founder is PLA, which reports to the CCP.
        onethought 6y ago
        Wow... Where do people make this stuff up? This is like CCP fan fiction. Larger companies often have to have a ccp representative, these aren’t agents... Founders are not PLA... you mean Huawei in particular... the founder was once in the army?
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Larger companies often have to have a ccp representative, these aren’t agents Larger companies must have a CCP cell in the company. Whether you call them reps or agents, they're CCP. > Founders are not PLA... you mean Huawei in particular... the founder was once in the army? The Huawei founder was a member of the PLA, and likely still is, since generally ex-military can always be recalled. Technology companies in China are dual-use (both civilian and military).
        onethought 6y ago
        Similar to how Amazon, Boeing, and AT&T are dual use? Or how Johnson and Johnson’s CEO is Ex military? Guess you should think twice about that shampoo. And that CCP cell controls the direction of the company? Or less dramatically does it ensure (a) workers rights (admittedly these are far worse conditions than western countries), and (b) that the company isn’t working against the CCP.
      - consumer451 6y ago
        > I’m curious what the “evilness” is. The lowest common denominator for systems which I find "evil" are systems with low accountability. Non-democratic authoritarian regimes, populations with large income divides, US policing systems, economies with monopolistic actors... all of these things are systems with low-to-zero accountability. Or if you are truly asking the innocent question "how are they evil?" Examples of how the CCP is evil can be found in HK jails, Tianamen square, and Xinjiang province for a start.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It's more accurate and appropriate to refer to the ruling party rather than the country itself. Many people have issues with Israel's foreign policy for example but that doesn't mean they are anti-semitic or anyway blame the Israeli people.
    - Udik 6y ago
      > .. or anyway blame the Israeli people No, they blame "Israel", which is a political and national entity. You can be more specific and blame one leader or party when that is a variable, but that's not the case with China- the CCP is in fact its fundamental political organisation. So the only reason to talk of "the CCP" instead of "China" is that it reframes an issue which is mostly a struggle for economic and military power between countries, to an issue within China itself, between the Chinese people and their government. Which is dishonest, because truth is, from one side the Chinese don't have much issues with their government, it's working great for them; and from the other side, the US would have issue with any government of China, as long as it keeps steadily advancing to become the first economic power in the world. But of course admitting that is not easy, so it's better to pretend the issue is "the CCP".
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    The CCP controls every facet of China. I suggest you learn more about that. For example, every company larger than about 40 employees has a CCP cell co-located in the office (office space, staff with the highest salary in the company, etc.) Most of the companies you hear about in the press are dual military/civilian, and the CCP has access to all computer systems. That's why Huawei (founded by a PLA member) cannot be allowed to be used in the West. FYI: the CCP has been in a cold war with the US since the 1950s, and asked Russia twice to attack the US with them. Luckily Russia laughed them off.
consumer451 6y ago
I am very confused here: > The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts. Are you saying that there are no security implications in having the CCP build and run your country's digital infrastructure?
- thow-01187 6y ago
  I believe one of the major reasons why Huawei is so vilified is that it's the first Chinese corporation that not only outprices its Western competitors, but also outtechs and outmanages them. This goes so counter to the Gated Institutional Narrative that cognitive dissonance kicks in - media insist there must surely be something dishonest and fraudulent about Huawei. Both Ericsson and Nokia barely make any profit, even amidst of what should be a 5G bonanza. They're famous for their perennial layoffs, constant cost-cutting, bland working conditions, outsourcing, infighting, insane level of bureaucracy and proliferation of management positions. Huawei on the other hand, is well known for paying above-market wages (though long working hours), "poaching" skilled people from competitors, generous employee share scheme, valuing engineering above middle management, contributing to open source projects, and relative freedom their R&D personnel enjoys in tackling technical challenges. And their B2B offerings are the best value. And their consumer electronics is among the best value. And on top of that, they're highly profitable. Even if you assert there's some secret money pump from CCP to Huawei, you cannot deny the fact that Huawei is a well-oiled machine that delivers. Pump billions into not only Nokia/Ericsson, but also IBM, SAP, HP, Oracle - the money would just get sucked into a black hole with very little to show for it. Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness.
  - consumer451 6y ago
    > Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness. While this may be the case with some people with loose morals, don't put your words in my finger tips. I portray all major Chinese corps as the worst possible alternative in most cases because they are backed by a government with modern day concentration camps I hang in the EU a lot lately. My friend takes corporate groups on tours of various places. She told me of one group from China last year who happened to see European reporting on protests in HK, while they were at a bar. The group's reaction was "what is this a joke? Are they being sarcastic? Is this a movie?" They had no idea what was happening in HK. A couple of them sent messages home to friends/family about the matter and within minutes all of their phones were disabled. This actually happened. I want that government as far from me as possible.
threeseed 6y ago
This statement is completely wrong. Huawei is a legitimate threat from a country that doesn't have the same checks and balances as other countries e.g. free media, robust judiciary, democracy. And it's not like network providers are specifically trying to secure their platform against Huawei. It's against anyone.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The internal structure of a country is not a good predictor of its foreign policy. How countries act foreign policy wise is very simple - they will attempt to achieve the most advantageous positions for themselves, without regard for you (unless you can help them, of course). It doesn't matter if you're dealing with a dictatorship or a democracy when it comes to foreign policy. Both will kill you.
- onethought 6y ago
  But the US had all those things and still spied on everyone’s networks... but we should keep following that logic?

redis_mlc 6y ago

> The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts. So anti-CCP? Sounds good to me!

Udik 6y ago
Using "CCP" in place of "China" is a trend that started with the recent demonization of China. It appears you have been persuaded by the anti-China narrative to the point that you openly welcome more of it irrespectively of its factual basis.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- consumer451 6y ago
  > Using "CCP" in place of "China" is a trend that started with the recent demonization of China. I take exception to this as I have been trying to explain to everyone how evil the CCP is for many years. It is not recent. Using the term CCP is simply an attempt to accurately identify the problem, and not be lazy/racist by blaming things on "China."
  - onethought 6y ago
    I’m curious what the “evilness” is. Also, Hua wei isn’t the ccp. I’m sure there is influence for sure. Just like there is influence in US companies from government.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > Also, Hua wei isn’t the ccp. I’m sure there is influence for sure Actually, the CCP controls all companies in China, and has agents on site in each company over about 40 employees. The founder is PLA, which reports to the CCP.
      - onethought 6y ago
        Wow... Where do people make this stuff up? This is like CCP fan fiction. Larger companies often have to have a ccp representative, these aren’t agents... Founders are not PLA... you mean Huawei in particular... the founder was once in the army?
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Larger companies often have to have a ccp representative, these aren’t agents Larger companies must have a CCP cell in the company. Whether you call them reps or agents, they're CCP. > Founders are not PLA... you mean Huawei in particular... the founder was once in the army? The Huawei founder was a member of the PLA, and likely still is, since generally ex-military can always be recalled. Technology companies in China are dual-use (both civilian and military).
        onethought 6y ago
        Similar to how Amazon, Boeing, and AT&T are dual use? Or how Johnson and Johnson’s CEO is Ex military? Guess you should think twice about that shampoo. And that CCP cell controls the direction of the company? Or less dramatically does it ensure (a) workers rights (admittedly these are far worse conditions than western countries), and (b) that the company isn’t working against the CCP.
    - consumer451 6y ago
      > I’m curious what the “evilness” is. The lowest common denominator for systems which I find "evil" are systems with low accountability. Non-democratic authoritarian regimes, populations with large income divides, US policing systems, economies with monopolistic actors... all of these things are systems with low-to-zero accountability. Or if you are truly asking the innocent question "how are they evil?" Examples of how the CCP is evil can be found in HK jails, Tianamen square, and Xinjiang province for a start.
- threeseed 6y ago
  It's more accurate and appropriate to refer to the ruling party rather than the country itself. Many people have issues with Israel's foreign policy for example but that doesn't mean they are anti-semitic or anyway blame the Israeli people.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > .. or anyway blame the Israeli people No, they blame "Israel", which is a political and national entity. You can be more specific and blame one leader or party when that is a variable, but that's not the case with China- the CCP is in fact its fundamental political organisation. So the only reason to talk of "the CCP" instead of "China" is that it reframes an issue which is mostly a struggle for economic and military power between countries, to an issue within China itself, between the Chinese people and their government. Which is dishonest, because truth is, from one side the Chinese don't have much issues with their government, it's working great for them; and from the other side, the US would have issue with any government of China, as long as it keeps steadily advancing to become the first economic power in the world. But of course admitting that is not easy, so it's better to pretend the issue is "the CCP".
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  The CCP controls every facet of China. I suggest you learn more about that. For example, every company larger than about 40 employees has a CCP cell co-located in the office (office space, staff with the highest salary in the company, etc.) Most of the companies you hear about in the press are dual military/civilian, and the CCP has access to all computer systems. That's why Huawei (founded by a PLA member) cannot be allowed to be used in the West. FYI: the CCP has been in a cold war with the US since the 1950s, and asked Russia twice to attack the US with them. Luckily Russia laughed them off.

consumer451 6y ago

I am very confused here: > The anti Huawei narrative is entirely political and not based on facts. Are you saying that there are no security implications in having the CCP build and run your country's digital infrastructure?

thow-01187 6y ago
I believe one of the major reasons why Huawei is so vilified is that it's the first Chinese corporation that not only outprices its Western competitors, but also outtechs and outmanages them. This goes so counter to the Gated Institutional Narrative that cognitive dissonance kicks in - media insist there must surely be something dishonest and fraudulent about Huawei. Both Ericsson and Nokia barely make any profit, even amidst of what should be a 5G bonanza. They're famous for their perennial layoffs, constant cost-cutting, bland working conditions, outsourcing, infighting, insane level of bureaucracy and proliferation of management positions. Huawei on the other hand, is well known for paying above-market wages (though long working hours), "poaching" skilled people from competitors, generous employee share scheme, valuing engineering above middle management, contributing to open source projects, and relative freedom their R&D personnel enjoys in tackling technical challenges. And their B2B offerings are the best value. And their consumer electronics is among the best value. And on top of that, they're highly profitable. Even if you assert there's some secret money pump from CCP to Huawei, you cannot deny the fact that Huawei is a well-oiled machine that delivers. Pump billions into not only Nokia/Ericsson, but also IBM, SAP, HP, Oracle - the money would just get sucked into a black hole with very little to show for it. Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness.
- consumer451 6y ago
  > Huawei is portrayed as evil, because the alternative is to confront our weakness. While this may be the case with some people with loose morals, don't put your words in my finger tips. I portray all major Chinese corps as the worst possible alternative in most cases because they are backed by a government with modern day concentration camps I hang in the EU a lot lately. My friend takes corporate groups on tours of various places. She told me of one group from China last year who happened to see European reporting on protests in HK, while they were at a bar. The group's reaction was "what is this a joke? Are they being sarcastic? Is this a movie?" They had no idea what was happening in HK. A couple of them sent messages home to friends/family about the matter and within minutes all of their phones were disabled. This actually happened. I want that government as far from me as possible.

threeseed 6y ago

This statement is completely wrong. Huawei is a legitimate threat from a country that doesn't have the same checks and balances as other countries e.g. free media, robust judiciary, democracy. And it's not like network providers are specifically trying to secure their platform against Huawei. It's against anyone.

sudosysgen 6y ago
The internal structure of a country is not a good predictor of its foreign policy. How countries act foreign policy wise is very simple - they will attempt to achieve the most advantageous positions for themselves, without regard for you (unless you can help them, of course). It doesn't matter if you're dealing with a dictatorship or a democracy when it comes to foreign policy. Both will kill you.
onethought 6y ago
But the US had all those things and still spied on everyone’s networks... but we should keep following that logic?