5 ms·

Using your analogy, US blocking a Swiss child porn site would be “banning EU businesses”. Google isn’t banned in China, it just isn’t operating there, because

by trasz 4y ago

Using your analogy, US blocking a Swiss child porn site would be “banning EU businesses”. Google isn’t banned in China, it just isn’t operating there, because it would need to obey the law.

skissane 4y ago
So, if the US says that foreign communications equipment firms who want to sell into the US have to demonstrate they are not subservient to any non-democratic government-a standard Huawei and ZTE cannot meet-then Huawei and ZTE are not (by your logic) being “banned” either, they are merely unwilling or unable to comply with US law and government policy.
- trasz 4y ago
  Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies. That, btw, is another aspect of this problem - American companies like Cisco have been shown to plant backdoors, while the “subservient” Huawei hadn’t.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies. That’s not true though. American companies will, on a regular basis, publicly criticise proposed and actual US government policies, and fund third party groups (lobby groups, think-tanks, etc) which do the same. Tell me, how often do Huawei and ZTE publicly criticise proposed and actual Chinese government policies? How much money do they give to groups which publicly criticise the Chinese government? Their failure to do those things is a very real way in which they demonstrate government subservience but Western companies do not.
    - trasz 4y ago
      American companies can criticize the government, because it doesn’t matter - in the end they will do whatever they are told, legal or not. Tell me, why are there backdoors in American telco equipment, but not in Chinese? Are those manufacturers planting them _against_ their government will? :-)
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - pshirshov 4y ago
        Clown
      - pshirshov 4y ago
        Regarding backdoors. I've experienced a MITM attack performed by Huawei 5G CPE. In domestic environment. Other people report that too: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/218425/router-tries-to-manipulate-https-connections https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/218425/router-t... Can you commie-explain that?
        trasz 4y ago
        It’s already explained in your link. Also this is not infrastructure, which is what we’re talking about.
        pshirshov 4y ago
        Nope, it's not explained there: 1) These routers do not provide any kind of content filtering features 2) My particular terminal was in bridge mode 3) It's happening rarely on random websites So, if they MITM random SSL sessions with home equipment I can imagine what they do with business infrastructure.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > American companies can criticize the government, because it doesn’t matter If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned? And, how do you know there are no backdoors in Chinese telco equipment? Even if none have been publicised, that doesn’t mean none exist.
        trasz 4y ago
        >If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned? That’s a very good question. I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea. And yeah, it’s unfortunate. Also notice how you don’t hear about this problem in context of other countries. Same as you don’t hear about someone who spent four years in prison for merely talking to police when it happens in USA, but you would if it happened in China. Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising. As for the backdoors - there have been audits, eg by GHCQ, and hadn’t found nothing suspicious. So sure, we can suspect something might have been missed, but for now the score is pretty clear: numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese.

by trasz 4y ago

Using your analogy, US blocking a Swiss child porn site would be “banning EU businesses”. Google isn’t banned in China, it just isn’t operating there, because it would need to obey the law.

skissane 4y ago

So, if the US says that foreign communications equipment firms who want to sell into the US have to demonstrate they are not subservient to any non-democratic government-a standard Huawei and ZTE cannot meet-then Huawei and ZTE are not (by your logic) being “banned” either, they are merely unwilling or unable to comply with US law and government policy.

trasz 4y ago
Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies. That, btw, is another aspect of this problem - American companies like Cisco have been shown to plant backdoors, while the “subservient” Huawei hadn’t.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies. That’s not true though. American companies will, on a regular basis, publicly criticise proposed and actual US government policies, and fund third party groups (lobby groups, think-tanks, etc) which do the same. Tell me, how often do Huawei and ZTE publicly criticise proposed and actual Chinese government policies? How much money do they give to groups which publicly criticise the Chinese government? Their failure to do those things is a very real way in which they demonstrate government subservience but Western companies do not.
  - trasz 4y ago
    American companies can criticize the government, because it doesn’t matter - in the end they will do whatever they are told, legal or not. Tell me, why are there backdoors in American telco equipment, but not in Chinese? Are those manufacturers planting them _against_ their government will? :-)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pshirshov 4y ago
      Clown
    - pshirshov 4y ago
      Regarding backdoors. I've experienced a MITM attack performed by Huawei 5G CPE. In domestic environment. Other people report that too: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/218425/router-tries-to-manipulate-https-connections https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/218425/router-t... Can you commie-explain that?
      - trasz 4y ago
        It’s already explained in your link. Also this is not infrastructure, which is what we’re talking about.
        pshirshov 4y ago
        Nope, it's not explained there: 1) These routers do not provide any kind of content filtering features 2) My particular terminal was in bridge mode 3) It's happening rarely on random websites So, if they MITM random SSL sessions with home equipment I can imagine what they do with business infrastructure.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > American companies can criticize the government, because it doesn’t matter If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned? And, how do you know there are no backdoors in Chinese telco equipment? Even if none have been publicised, that doesn’t mean none exist.
      - trasz 4y ago
        >If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned? That’s a very good question. I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea. And yeah, it’s unfortunate. Also notice how you don’t hear about this problem in context of other countries. Same as you don’t hear about someone who spent four years in prison for merely talking to police when it happens in USA, but you would if it happened in China. Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising. As for the backdoors - there have been audits, eg by GHCQ, and hadn’t found nothing suspicious. So sure, we can suspect something might have been missed, but for now the score is pretty clear: numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese.