5 ms·

the video surveillance bans all seem to target billion dollar companies, so its safe to say this is just your friendly lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getti

the video surveillance bans all seem to target billion dollar companies, so its safe to say this is just your friendly lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getting an early christmas gift. the security argument is pretty flimsy considering how many american companies are just as bad (looking at you nest) the usual suspect, huawei, has been on americas shitlist ever since they beat US telcos to market with 5g. their cellphones all meet or exceed the build quality of a samsung or iphone and to date america has failed to produce any real evidence of a security issue except 'china scary.' toward the end of the presser its refreshing to see an octogrnarian made sure to remind us all these companies are to some extent "government funded" as if americas subsidies to auto and airlines are somehow any different. "government owned" also gets condescendingly asserted as if the reader isnt familiar with how a planned economy under post soviet marxist theory works. ever since the net neutrality fiasco ive lost a lot of faith in the fcc. largely a toothless organization of corporate business interests.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getting an early christmas gift This has no impact on sales to the consumer market for Video, the covered list [1] limits the ban to "the extent it is used for the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities" Ring, Nest etc are used for personal home and small business not likely covered under that ban, and the people buying Hikvision as an example most likely are not the target consumer of Ring devices. Hikvision is / was popular is commercial segment of professionally installed products, I know of zero professional installers doing commercial deployments of Ring. Companies like Axis however do get a boost as Axis is often many times more expensive than Hikvision [1]https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist
- scottcodie 4y ago
  "The action we take today covers base station equipment that goes into our networks. It covers phones, cameras, and WiFi routers that go into our homes. And it covers rebranded or ‘white label’ equipment that is developed for the marketplace. In other words, this approach is comprehensive," said Jessica Rosenworcel, chair of the FCC.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I would would say the "Jessica Rosenworcel, chair of the FCC." need to read the law and regulations they are enforcing, as well as their own published documentations. Like with most government officials I care less what they say in Press Conferences, that has ZERO regulatory weight, or validation and is often hyperbolic or out right false I care about the actual regulation, and rules as implemented and enforced. Also even if they are expanding the devices, this would only apply to camera's with WiFi, Most commercial camera's are POE ethernet not wifi. Using WiFi security camera's is just asking for trouble since it is easy for criminals to take out wifi remotely
paganel 4y ago
> has been on americas shitlist ever since they beat US telcos to market with 5g Serious question, have the the likes of Ericsson and Nokia managed to catch up with Huawei when it comes to 5G telco equipment? Last I dived into this was about 2-3 years ago, when that Huawei executive got arrested in Canada or some such, and if I remember right the discourse back then was that Huawei's 5G equipment was both cheaper and better compared to what the Western companies were able to provide at the time.
yourapostasy 4y ago
> "government owned" also gets condescendingly asserted as if the reader isnt familiar with how a planned economy under post soviet marxist theory works. Most readers of the article can be fairly assumed to know this. Most consumers (including b2b) outside of various tech and policy circles cannot, and the policy is aimed at short circuiting the banned functionally SOE’s from embedding themselves into the communications infrastructure. Gathering intelligence from automotive and aerospace dominance yields substantially less actionable information than from dominance of communications infrastructure. The subsidies you are comparing are fundamentally, qualitatively different. It isn’t just the FCC. The entire US government at all levels down to local is captured by corporate business interests. Doesn’t mean every policy decision solely caters to those interests and ignore national defense interests. Also doesn’t mean the US intelligence apparatus isn’t in bed with Western communications technology manufacturers.
UberFly 4y ago
Not saying there isn't lobbying efforts underway, but trying to limit Chinese-based video and audio equipment that's unaccountable to US laws or oversite from government locations seems like a reasonable thing to do. Dahua and Hikvision have a long history of backdoors. Many of these things chat like crazy to servers in China if not firewalled properly.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  I'm not sure how to tell you this but if your CCTV cameras can get to the internet you've done so many things so completely wrong that you just ought to stop doing whatever it is you're doing. Though the argument is more fair in relation to their DVR/VMS products, but it's difficult to see a reason to use those as better alternatives running on your own hardware exist. As a gov't installation your worries are different of course. I'd worry about, say, a specialized firmware finding its way to me, which can be commanded to disrupt surveillance in response to QR codes or other visual or auditory signals.
  - helloooooooo 4y ago
    Tell that to non technical businesspeople deploying shorty Chinese cameras.
roperj 4y ago
This might make some sense if you knew what the hell you were talking about, but Hikvision and Dahua are not at all in the same market segments as Nest and Ring - and this does not apply to the consumer market.
- scottcodie 4y ago
  The consumer market ban happens when the FCC refuses to certify any new devices so they are not eligible for import for the US consumer market.
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> the video surveillance bans all seem to target billion dollar companies, so its safe to say this is just your friendly lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getting an early christmas gift How does that logically follow? Can billion dollar companies not be security threats? > the usual suspect, huawei, has been on americas shitlist ever since they beat US telcos to market with 5g. their cellphones all meet or exceed the build quality of a samsung or iphone and to date america has failed to produce any real evidence of a security issue except 'china scary.' No one and not even Huawei believes that. By your logic, you admit China has banned all these US websites as they are afraid of competition and not any other reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Well he is right in that Huawei source code has been reviwed by Uk gov, and they found nothing. The accusations do appear to be based on nothing at this time. I would like tonsee rigorous benchmarks for vode quality and trustworthyness, not arbitrary and whinsical political decision-making
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Just because UK found nothing doesn't mean others also found nothing. > "We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world," Robert O'Brien, national security adviser, reportedly said. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoor-access-to-mobile-networks-globally-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoo... https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-covertly-access-telecom-networks-11581452256 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-co...
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      UK government has takes GCHQ to review source code and make spesific conclusions. The links you provide have unspecified official sharing his views of intelligence of unspesified quality. There appears to be no code review and no spesific information about what information Huawei has access to, which equipment is affected, etc. I am not sure we can treat this level of intelligence with complete trust, it could be a PR excersise

phpisthebest 4y ago

>lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getting an early christmas gift This has no impact on sales to the consumer market for Video, the covered list [1] limits the ban to "the extent it is used for the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities" Ring, Nest etc are used for personal home and small business not likely covered under that ban, and the people buying Hikvision as an example most likely are not the target consumer of Ring devices. Hikvision is / was popular is commercial segment of professionally installed products, I know of zero professional installers doing commercial deployments of Ring. Companies like Axis however do get a boost as Axis is often many times more expensive than Hikvision [1]https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist

scottcodie 4y ago
"The action we take today covers base station equipment that goes into our networks. It covers phones, cameras, and WiFi routers that go into our homes. And it covers rebranded or ‘white label’ equipment that is developed for the marketplace. In other words, this approach is comprehensive," said Jessica Rosenworcel, chair of the FCC.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I would would say the "Jessica Rosenworcel, chair of the FCC." need to read the law and regulations they are enforcing, as well as their own published documentations. Like with most government officials I care less what they say in Press Conferences, that has ZERO regulatory weight, or validation and is often hyperbolic or out right false I care about the actual regulation, and rules as implemented and enforced. Also even if they are expanding the devices, this would only apply to camera's with WiFi, Most commercial camera's are POE ethernet not wifi. Using WiFi security camera's is just asking for trouble since it is easy for criminals to take out wifi remotely

paganel 4y ago

> has been on americas shitlist ever since they beat US telcos to market with 5g Serious question, have the the likes of Ericsson and Nokia managed to catch up with Huawei when it comes to 5G telco equipment? Last I dived into this was about 2-3 years ago, when that Huawei executive got arrested in Canada or some such, and if I remember right the discourse back then was that Huawei's 5G equipment was both cheaper and better compared to what the Western companies were able to provide at the time.

yourapostasy 4y ago

> "government owned" also gets condescendingly asserted as if the reader isnt familiar with how a planned economy under post soviet marxist theory works. Most readers of the article can be fairly assumed to know this. Most consumers (including b2b) outside of various tech and policy circles cannot, and the policy is aimed at short circuiting the banned functionally SOE’s from embedding themselves into the communications infrastructure. Gathering intelligence from automotive and aerospace dominance yields substantially less actionable information than from dominance of communications infrastructure. The subsidies you are comparing are fundamentally, qualitatively different. It isn’t just the FCC. The entire US government at all levels down to local is captured by corporate business interests. Doesn’t mean every policy decision solely caters to those interests and ignore national defense interests. Also doesn’t mean the US intelligence apparatus isn’t in bed with Western communications technology manufacturers.

UberFly 4y ago

Not saying there isn't lobbying efforts underway, but trying to limit Chinese-based video and audio equipment that's unaccountable to US laws or oversite from government locations seems like a reasonable thing to do. Dahua and Hikvision have a long history of backdoors. Many of these things chat like crazy to servers in China if not firewalled properly.

formerly_proven 4y ago
I'm not sure how to tell you this but if your CCTV cameras can get to the internet you've done so many things so completely wrong that you just ought to stop doing whatever it is you're doing. Though the argument is more fair in relation to their DVR/VMS products, but it's difficult to see a reason to use those as better alternatives running on your own hardware exist. As a gov't installation your worries are different of course. I'd worry about, say, a specialized firmware finding its way to me, which can be commanded to disrupt surveillance in response to QR codes or other visual or auditory signals.
- helloooooooo 4y ago
  Tell that to non technical businesspeople deploying shorty Chinese cameras.

roperj 4y ago

This might make some sense if you knew what the hell you were talking about, but Hikvision and Dahua are not at all in the same market segments as Nest and Ring - and this does not apply to the consumer market.

scottcodie 4y ago
The consumer market ban happens when the FCC refuses to certify any new devices so they are not eligible for import for the US consumer market.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> the video surveillance bans all seem to target billion dollar companies, so its safe to say this is just your friendly lobbyists at ring, nest, and amazon getting an early christmas gift How does that logically follow? Can billion dollar companies not be security threats? > the usual suspect, huawei, has been on americas shitlist ever since they beat US telcos to market with 5g. their cellphones all meet or exceed the build quality of a samsung or iphone and to date america has failed to produce any real evidence of a security issue except 'china scary.' No one and not even Huawei believes that. By your logic, you admit China has banned all these US websites as they are afraid of competition and not any other reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Well he is right in that Huawei source code has been reviwed by Uk gov, and they found nothing. The accusations do appear to be based on nothing at this time. I would like tonsee rigorous benchmarks for vode quality and trustworthyness, not arbitrary and whinsical political decision-making
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Just because UK found nothing doesn't mean others also found nothing. > "We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world," Robert O'Brien, national security adviser, reportedly said. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoor-access-to-mobile-networks-globally-report-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoo... https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-covertly-access-telecom-networks-11581452256 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-co...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    UK government has takes GCHQ to review source code and make spesific conclusions. The links you provide have unspecified official sharing his views of intelligence of unspesified quality. There appears to be no code review and no spesific information about what information Huawei has access to, which equipment is affected, etc. I am not sure we can treat this level of intelligence with complete trust, it could be a PR excersise