6 ms·

Reminder of how this started... when Huawei and ZTE decided that because they weren't American companies, they didnt need to answer questions from Congress, and

Reminder of how this started... when Huawei and ZTE decided that because they weren't American companies, they didnt need to answer questions from Congress, and even outright lied about the structure of their companies to conceal CPC/government involvement: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rm226yb7473/Huawei-ZTE%20Investigative%20Report%20%28FINAL%29.pdf https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rm226yb7473/Huawei-ZT...

sschueller 4y ago
Sounds like what Twitter will be facing in the EU but for quite different reasons. No one left to deal with the regulators.
huntertwo 4y ago
Doesn’t everybody have the right to not answer questions? Americans don’t have to do this either
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  Surprisingly, no. You have the right to not testify/incriminate against yourself. Beyond that, you can absolutely be compelled to answer questions.
- amelius 4y ago
  Zuck had to answer questions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  That's correct, they certainly have the right to not answer questions...and the US government has the right to interpret that lack of cooperation any way it chooses, and, say, ban their products.
  - k_paleologos 4y ago
    What government can do is limited by the constitution. Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. Is it established that they have broken US laws?
    - kube-system 4y ago
      > Article I, Section 8 > The Congress shall have Power [...] > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
    - MattGaiser 4y ago
      > Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. I don't think the right to sell goods is in the Constitution. What is in the constitution is an explicit grant to power to Congress to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"
    - loeg 4y ago
      - dang 4y ago
        Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another account is or you feel it is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - galdosdi 4y ago
      Have you read the US constitution? It is very short, easily reeadable in an hour. So if your comment is sincere, you would cite the specific clause of the constitution that you are worried is being violated. There is no such clause.
    - PenguinCoder 4y ago
      Not publicly, because they won't step up and answer questions, in public.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  When it's some country's Congress questioning, there are usually penalties to not answering. But, of course, one can always just face the penalties.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  Americans do have to answer questions posed by Congress or a court in many, many situations. It is commonplace for large public companies for example, to have to answer questions from regulators or Congress. For example, any time there's a merger, the federal government must approve it to ensure anti-monopoly laws are not violated by the new market arrangement. Or you may recall the famous cases of auto executives being questioned over car safety, or Zuckerberg being questioned over social media's effects on society. Are you new to following US business news? Are you just very confused and think the famous "fifth amendment" applies here? Go back and read it if so. > Americans don’t have to do this either
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I think his point is that you can choose to go to jail for contempt rather than answer anything. If your sit in jail long enough, the world moves on and your testimony is no longer relevant. That’s when a judge releases you (i think).
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  When called before congress? That's not accurate, beyond you don't have to, but then pay the price - much like these companies have.
- staticman2 4y ago
  Americans have to answer questions if you are issued a legal subpoena, when it's census time, among other situations.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Many people have faced serious legal consequences for not answering questions from Congress, for example related to Jan. 6 riot. You do have the right to avoid testifying against yourself, so often Congress has to grant immunity from prosecution, in order to remove this legally justifiable excuse for not answering questions. I remember in the Iran/contra scandal, Congress was asked not to do this so that some of the people involved could be prosecuted, but chose to proceed for various reasons best known to themselves.
k_paleologos 4y ago
Is government involvement problematic? Many firms have government involvement, often in an under the table manner. For example Airbus. Government involvement is in itself no grounds for banning a company.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  When that government is actively stealing your intellectual property, hacking your computer systems and installing ransomware, threatening war against an important ally... And when the product is telecommunications technology... I'm going with yes. The EU and the PRC are not even remotely comparable from the perspective of the U.S.
- rgbrenner 4y ago
  These companies have a board of Communist Party members that approve all company decisions/actions.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Even American companies in China have a Party cell. This is the law for all companies above a certain size. Those cells do not 'approve all company decisions'.
    - aworks 4y ago
      On a business trip to China, I accidentally walked into our company's Communist Party meeting (and was politely encouraged to quickly leave). I have no idea if company-specific discussion ever occurred. Our office was mostly junior engineers so company decisions wouldn't be made at that level in any case.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  Airbus is a French company. France is part of NATO. In the event of war, France and the US would likely be obligated to be on the same side by their NATO treaty obligations. I don't think you are very informed on this matter.
galdosdi 4y ago
Yes, exactly. For those in a hurry, here's an excerpt from the executive summary. ``` Despite hours of interviews, extensive and repeated document requests, a review of open-source information, and an open hearing with witnesses from both companies, the Committee remains unsatisfied with the level of cooperation and candor provided by each company. Neither company was willing to provide sufficient evidence to ameliorate the Committee’s concerns. Neither company was forthcoming with detailed information about its formal relationships or regulatory interaction with Chinese authorities. Neither company provided specific details about the precise role of each company’s Chinese Communist Party Committee. Furthermore, neither company provided detailed information about its operations in the United States. Huawei, in particular, failed to provide thorough information about its corporate structure, history, ownership, operations, financial arrangements, or management. Most importantly, neither company provided sufficient internal documentation or other evidence to support the limited answers they did provide to Committee investigators. During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. These allegations describe a company that has not followed United States legal obligations or international standards of business behavior. The Committee will be referring these allegations to Executive Branch agencies for further review, including possible investigation. ```
- k_paleologos 4y ago
  "During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. " This is a claim which can only be proven in a court of law.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    So? No one's bringing them up on criminal charges. If I think you're shady and you refuse to provide evidence otherwise, then I don't have to do business with you. And if I'm in charge of regulating business in the country, then I can prevent you from doing business here because of that perceived shadyness. It's that simple.
ZoomerCretin 4y ago
I wonder how many countries treat American telecom equipment the same way due to NSA involvement.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Not just telecom but phones, closed operating systems across any devices and basically any software. I have no illusion how good and obfluscated user tracking is baked in products of google apple, microsoft et al. From time to time some case highlights their desperate needs to use and hide tracking stuff, ie ms office printing almost invisible fingerprints in documents, and that was way more analog era. You can say though that most countries are US friends so there is nothing to worry. But even among friends, ie industrial espionage happens all the time, and just financial harm can easily go into tens of % of given GDP
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  What american telecom equipment? ;)
mytailorisrich 4y ago
That obviously wasn't a very good move from Huawei and ZTE but it's disingenuous to claim this is what caused the current situation. It simply handed the US government a convenient stick when they really wanted one, and they would therefore have found one in any case. There is a global geopolitical struggle between the US and China, and the US see China as an increasingly serious threat to their 'leadership'. That really is the bottom line.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
This is a very detailed examination of Huawei's ownership structure: [0]. It was written after claims that Huawei is secretly state-owned. The author goes into some detail about Chinese corporate law, and shows that Huawei is effectively employee-owned (effectively, because Chinese corporate law limits the numbers of shareholders in private companies, so there is a legal structure that holds shares on behalf of employees). 0. https://www.pekingnology.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-response https://www.pekingnology.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-resp...
- b112 4y ago
  Seems weird that people would think "secret ownership" would be public, about a company located in China, which controls ownership info. That said, what is on the books is irrelevant, if the senior staff are in the pocket of the PRC. Or, you know, their entire family is under threat, a common way to compel in China.

sschueller 4y ago

Sounds like what Twitter will be facing in the EU but for quite different reasons. No one left to deal with the regulators.

huntertwo 4y ago

Doesn’t everybody have the right to not answer questions? Americans don’t have to do this either

dghlsakjg 4y ago
Surprisingly, no. You have the right to not testify/incriminate against yourself. Beyond that, you can absolutely be compelled to answer questions.
amelius 4y ago
Zuck had to answer questions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ghufran_syed 4y ago
That's correct, they certainly have the right to not answer questions...and the US government has the right to interpret that lack of cooperation any way it chooses, and, say, ban their products.
- k_paleologos 4y ago
  What government can do is limited by the constitution. Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. Is it established that they have broken US laws?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    > Article I, Section 8 > The Congress shall have Power [...] > To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
  - MattGaiser 4y ago
    > Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. I don't think the right to sell goods is in the Constitution. What is in the constitution is an explicit grant to power to Congress to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"
  - loeg 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another account is or you feel it is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - galdosdi 4y ago
    Have you read the US constitution? It is very short, easily reeadable in an hour. So if your comment is sincere, you would cite the specific clause of the constitution that you are worried is being violated. There is no such clause.
  - PenguinCoder 4y ago
    Not publicly, because they won't step up and answer questions, in public.
marcosdumay 4y ago
When it's some country's Congress questioning, there are usually penalties to not answering. But, of course, one can always just face the penalties.
galdosdi 4y ago
Americans do have to answer questions posed by Congress or a court in many, many situations. It is commonplace for large public companies for example, to have to answer questions from regulators or Congress. For example, any time there's a merger, the federal government must approve it to ensure anti-monopoly laws are not violated by the new market arrangement. Or you may recall the famous cases of auto executives being questioned over car safety, or Zuckerberg being questioned over social media's effects on society. Are you new to following US business news? Are you just very confused and think the famous "fifth amendment" applies here? Go back and read it if so. > Americans don’t have to do this either
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I think his point is that you can choose to go to jail for contempt rather than answer anything. If your sit in jail long enough, the world moves on and your testimony is no longer relevant. That’s when a judge releases you (i think).
skeeter2020 4y ago
When called before congress? That's not accurate, beyond you don't have to, but then pay the price - much like these companies have.
staticman2 4y ago
Americans have to answer questions if you are issued a legal subpoena, when it's census time, among other situations.
rossdavidh 4y ago
Many people have faced serious legal consequences for not answering questions from Congress, for example related to Jan. 6 riot. You do have the right to avoid testifying against yourself, so often Congress has to grant immunity from prosecution, in order to remove this legally justifiable excuse for not answering questions. I remember in the Iran/contra scandal, Congress was asked not to do this so that some of the people involved could be prosecuted, but chose to proceed for various reasons best known to themselves.

k_paleologos 4y ago

Is government involvement problematic? Many firms have government involvement, often in an under the table manner. For example Airbus. Government involvement is in itself no grounds for banning a company.

chitowneats 4y ago
When that government is actively stealing your intellectual property, hacking your computer systems and installing ransomware, threatening war against an important ally... And when the product is telecommunications technology... I'm going with yes. The EU and the PRC are not even remotely comparable from the perspective of the U.S.
rgbrenner 4y ago
These companies have a board of Communist Party members that approve all company decisions/actions.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Even American companies in China have a Party cell. This is the law for all companies above a certain size. Those cells do not 'approve all company decisions'.
  - aworks 4y ago
    On a business trip to China, I accidentally walked into our company's Communist Party meeting (and was politely encouraged to quickly leave). I have no idea if company-specific discussion ever occurred. Our office was mostly junior engineers so company decisions wouldn't be made at that level in any case.
galdosdi 4y ago
Airbus is a French company. France is part of NATO. In the event of war, France and the US would likely be obligated to be on the same side by their NATO treaty obligations. I don't think you are very informed on this matter.

galdosdi 4y ago

Yes, exactly. For those in a hurry, here's an excerpt from the executive summary. ``` Despite hours of interviews, extensive and repeated document requests, a review of open-source information, and an open hearing with witnesses from both companies, the Committee remains unsatisfied with the level of cooperation and candor provided by each company. Neither company was willing to provide sufficient evidence to ameliorate the Committee’s concerns. Neither company was forthcoming with detailed information about its formal relationships or regulatory interaction with Chinese authorities. Neither company provided specific details about the precise role of each company’s Chinese Communist Party Committee. Furthermore, neither company provided detailed information about its operations in the United States. Huawei, in particular, failed to provide thorough information about its corporate structure, history, ownership, operations, financial arrangements, or management. Most importantly, neither company provided sufficient internal documentation or other evidence to support the limited answers they did provide to Committee investigators. During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. These allegations describe a company that has not followed United States legal obligations or international standards of business behavior. The Committee will be referring these allegations to Executive Branch agencies for further review, including possible investigation. ```

k_paleologos 4y ago
"During the investigation, the Committee received information from industry experts and current and former Huawei employees suggesting that Huawei, in particular, may be violating United States laws. " This is a claim which can only be proven in a court of law.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  So? No one's bringing them up on criminal charges. If I think you're shady and you refuse to provide evidence otherwise, then I don't have to do business with you. And if I'm in charge of regulating business in the country, then I can prevent you from doing business here because of that perceived shadyness. It's that simple.

ZoomerCretin 4y ago

I wonder how many countries treat American telecom equipment the same way due to NSA involvement.

saiya-jin 4y ago
Not just telecom but phones, closed operating systems across any devices and basically any software. I have no illusion how good and obfluscated user tracking is baked in products of google apple, microsoft et al. From time to time some case highlights their desperate needs to use and hide tracking stuff, ie ms office printing almost invisible fingerprints in documents, and that was way more analog era. You can say though that most countries are US friends so there is nothing to worry. But even among friends, ie industrial espionage happens all the time, and just financial harm can easily go into tens of % of given GDP
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dilyevsky 4y ago
What american telecom equipment? ;)

mytailorisrich 4y ago

That obviously wasn't a very good move from Huawei and ZTE but it's disingenuous to claim this is what caused the current situation. It simply handed the US government a convenient stick when they really wanted one, and they would therefore have found one in any case. There is a global geopolitical struggle between the US and China, and the US see China as an increasingly serious threat to their 'leadership'. That really is the bottom line.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

This is a very detailed examination of Huawei's ownership structure: [0]. It was written after claims that Huawei is secretly state-owned. The author goes into some detail about Chinese corporate law, and shows that Huawei is effectively employee-owned (effectively, because Chinese corporate law limits the numbers of shareholders in private companies, so there is a legal structure that holds shares on behalf of employees). 0. https://www.pekingnology.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-response https://www.pekingnology.com/p/who-really-owns-huawei-a-resp...

b112 4y ago
Seems weird that people would think "secret ownership" would be public, about a company located in China, which controls ownership info. That said, what is on the books is irrelevant, if the senior staff are in the pocket of the PRC. Or, you know, their entire family is under threat, a common way to compel in China.