4 ms·

The difference here is Yue Fei has had a solid track record of being loyal to the emperor. In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track recor

The difference here is Yue Fei has had a solid track record of being loyal to the emperor. In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with.

justicezyx 5y ago
> having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with. You manage to generate completely nonsensical gibberish in very short sentence: > having poor track record of intellectual theft You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP? If the latter, where is your evidence? CCP uses market coercion to force IP transfer, that's a well known practice. But where are the state sponsored IP theft? > CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with. How so? Obama called for G2 in [1], that's some serious recognition of the common interests between US and China. Right before Trump, you can find overwhelming official documents calling the sino us relationship being a overall positive one. So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest? And, for all the conflicting interests, other than the unfounded cyber security nonsense, what are the interests that huawei had a stake in? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Two https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Two
- BD829B01 5y ago
  > having poor track record of intellectual theft You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP? You cropped out the preceding bit where "In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft" First and second clauses are dependent. OP is asserting Huawei has a track record of IP theft. A supporting reference here would be the Cisco lawsuits in 2002-2003 of copyright and patent violations. Third clause is independent (the "and" is what separates them) and asserts the CCP has conflicts of interest with other countries. That's self-evident, I think -- all countries have some opposed interests. > Obama called for G2 [1] The linked page says: "Former President Barack Obama and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been very supportive of good relations between the two countries and more cooperation on more issues more often." This sentence has no sources. The following "However, Clinton has said that there is no G-2" does have a source, which dates to 2011, so during the Obama presidency the acting Secretary of State, who would be leading foreign relations. So... no, nobody called for G2. The source also says "the Obama administration is cultivating other allies across Asia to help it manage Beijing’s increasingly bold projection of military and economic power." > So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest? So, yeah, the CCP is the bad guy. > what are the interests that huawei had a stake in? Huawei is subject to the CCP, for example by the internal Party steering committee. Anything the CCP has a stake in, Huawei will, transitively. For example, the Party has an interest in the Hong Kong protesters who are seeking asylum in Europe. So Huawei does, too. And since we're talking about a European telecom... Note that I'm specifically referring to the CCP. Conflation between "common interests between US and China" and the goals of the CCP helps the latter at the expense of the former. > unfounded cyber security nonsense Given: 1. contractor has more access than they should 2. contractor's use of that access of not logged and therefore in-auditable That is the exact opposite of unfounded nonsense. The very fundamentals of security are Authentication, Authorization and Accounting. This completely violates two of those three.

justicezyx 5y ago

> having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with. You manage to generate completely nonsensical gibberish in very short sentence: > having poor track record of intellectual theft You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP? If the latter, where is your evidence? CCP uses market coercion to force IP transfer, that's a well known practice. But where are the state sponsored IP theft? > CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with. How so? Obama called for G2 in [1], that's some serious recognition of the common interests between US and China. Right before Trump, you can find overwhelming official documents calling the sino us relationship being a overall positive one. So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest? And, for all the conflicting interests, other than the unfounded cyber security nonsense, what are the interests that huawei had a stake in? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Two https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Two

BD829B01 5y ago
> having poor track record of intellectual theft You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP? You cropped out the preceding bit where "In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft" First and second clauses are dependent. OP is asserting Huawei has a track record of IP theft. A supporting reference here would be the Cisco lawsuits in 2002-2003 of copyright and patent violations. Third clause is independent (the "and" is what separates them) and asserts the CCP has conflicts of interest with other countries. That's self-evident, I think -- all countries have some opposed interests. > Obama called for G2 [1] The linked page says: "Former President Barack Obama and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been very supportive of good relations between the two countries and more cooperation on more issues more often." This sentence has no sources. The following "However, Clinton has said that there is no G-2" does have a source, which dates to 2011, so during the Obama presidency the acting Secretary of State, who would be leading foreign relations. So... no, nobody called for G2. The source also says "the Obama administration is cultivating other allies across Asia to help it manage Beijing’s increasingly bold projection of military and economic power." > So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest? So, yeah, the CCP is the bad guy. > what are the interests that huawei had a stake in? Huawei is subject to the CCP, for example by the internal Party steering committee. Anything the CCP has a stake in, Huawei will, transitively. For example, the Party has an interest in the Hong Kong protesters who are seeking asylum in Europe. So Huawei does, too. And since we're talking about a European telecom... Note that I'm specifically referring to the CCP. Conflation between "common interests between US and China" and the goals of the CCP helps the latter at the expense of the former. > unfounded cyber security nonsense Given: 1. contractor has more access than they should 2. contractor's use of that access of not logged and therefore in-auditable That is the exact opposite of unfounded nonsense. The very fundamentals of security are Authentication, Authorization and Accounting. This completely violates two of those three.