Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Network Networking United States

Trump Signs Law Banning Use of Federal Funds To Purchase Huawei Equipment (thehill.com) 50

Posted by msmash from the taking-a-stand dept.
President Trump on Thursday signed into law a bill banning the use of federal funds to purchase equipment from telecom companies deemed a national security threat, such as Chinese telecom group Huawei. From a report: The Secure and Trusted Communications Act, which the Senate passed in February and the House approved last year, will also require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a $1 billion fund to help small telecom groups remove existing equipment that is deemed to be a threat. "Securing our networks from malicious foreign interference is critical to America's wireless future, especially as some communications providers rely on equipment from companies like Huawei that pose an immense threat to America's national and economic security," the bill's House sponsors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), said in a statement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Signs Law Banning Use of Federal Funds To Purchase Huawei Equipment More

Trump Signs Law Banning Use of Federal Funds To Purchase Huawei Equipment

Comments Filter:

  • Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @12:34AM (#59825094)
    My guess is that the biggest 'problem' with Huawei equipment isn't who potentially has access to your data, but more with who hasn't.

    • Re:Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Friday March 13, 2020 @01:08AM (#59825154) Journal

      "who potentially has access to your data"

      Access to your data is your responsibility. As long as you are aware that without secure encryption, everything you transmit over a public network is as secure as a postcard, it's a non-issue. Otherwise, communicate with trusted servers and other known clients using academically vetted, open source cryptography and use as large a key as your resources will allow.

      It won't be safe forever but it will assure there will be a major delay in an adversaries ability to see the data. No need for a tinfoil hat once you understand that everything you transmit is archived somewhere, by someone.

      • Access to your data is your responsibility. As long as you are aware that without secure encryption, everything you transmit over a public network is as secure as a postcard, it's a non-issue.

        You're only addressing data as a sent message, private papers as adoption of Constitutional intent.

        Otherwise, communicate with trusted servers and other known clients using academically vetted, open source cryptography and use as large a key as your resources will allow.

        You're achieving a tone of big pharma to Consult Your Doctor. Following an assertion about personal responsibility and a list of highly technical specifications. I mean, If you're advocating for a new class of privacy MDs...okay, but parading your expertise as a simple matter of what everyone should do is a cliche of tech support twenty years passed.

        It won't be safe forever but it will assure there will be a major delay in an adversaries ability to see the data.

        Blithely offering information of a general character only a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        At some point in the stream, your data is unencrypted (eg behind the SSL proxy). You don't want Huawei sitting there. There is also a ton of information that can be gleaned from the data streams themselves. And then there is the capacity of a router/switch acting like any other server on the network, eg. a login page.

      • A postcard would be a good comparison if you held it up to your postman while they transcribed it onto a new paper, and that relay was repeated many times on the way to your destination. That is a packet switched network.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Anyone who isn't treating ANY telecommunications or data network (mobile, wireless, satellite, landline, cable, fiber or whatever else) that they don't own and control as potentially hostile (and encrypting anything even remotely sensitive that is being sent over those networks) deserves to have that information stolen or compromised.

      Doesn't matter who owns the network or what equipment is being used, it should all be treated as potentially unsafe.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Domestic surveillance has proven to be largely worthless. Billions of crimes committed and almost nothing to show for it.

      The other big problem is that this will end up hurting you more than it hurts them. China has accelerated its efforts to replace US technology with its own, and is now years ahead in some areas like 5G. You can try to persuade other countries not to buy Chinese tech but many of them will anyway (e.g. the UK, you supposed best buddies).

      Turns out trade wars are neither good nor easy to win.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nzkbuk ( 773506 )
      And there I was quite firmly under the impression that the biggest problem is an economic one. With the second biggest being who hasn't got an easy backdoor. Or to phrase it a different way, the US telecoms manufacturing sector (if it still has one) won't be able to ship any products. This has a knock on effect to the chip makers etc
  • Rep. Eric Swalwel (D-California):l I have faith in Pence and task force but worry about Trump's misinformation.
    VP Pence: "irresponsible rhetoric"

    To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
  • Mr Trump is closer to reach his ultimate goal: have the US in autarky. Cutting commercial links with China / Huawei / Europe... building a wall in the South, and now, thanks to coronavirus, preventing people from coming to the US. The US is showing the world how a heavy weight it is. IMO, the main reason of that is the dependency with the US that was installed after WWII, at many levels. In a way, Mr Trump is telling everyone in the rest of the world that this can be ultimately dangerous, when the main stro

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by magusxxx ( 751600 )

      No, he's telling the world "Other dictators get away with this so I can as well."

      Not realizing how many dictators the U.S. have gotten out of the way with the help of the citizens in those same countries.

      • Dictators are more of a Euro-peon thing. We've got plenty of problems, but that isn't one of them.

        • Really? Trump has made it clear he is a fan of Mussolini and has quoted him several times.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          lol, if that's how you justify it to yourself sure.

          Meanwhile, you have a guy who was put into power despite losing the popular vote by 3 million ballots, has the power to override your elected representatives, and can even stack the judiciary in his favour or let his criminal friends out of jail at will.

          Whilst in Europe proportional representation is common, the judiciary is independent, there's no grand dictator who controls is all, the most you have is a prime minister who serves parliaments, rather than

          • Who upmodded that trash. The U.S. has separation of powers, as defined by our constitutional form of government. The states, as in United States of America, elect the president and not the popular vote. You may also have noticed our legislative branch recently voting on removing the Chief Executive.

            Meanwhile the UK breaks off from the tyranny that is the EU. Let's hope the European court of Human Rights doesn't rule that offending the feelings [coe.int] of your political elite isn't also a crime.

    • Is Autarky what lonely masturbators eat for thanskgiving?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      China is now literally blaming the US for the outbreak and threatening to cut off supplies of medicine to the rest of the world if it doesn't get what it wants.

      Unbridled globalism has failed and is now coming back to bite. The US has very little remaining production capacity for key industries, a requirement which was instituted after WWII by Eisenhower and lasted until the fall of the Berlin wall, then dismantled. This localism of jobs and self-sufficiency during a time of uncertainty was the primary cause

  • Last time Trump banned something chinese it lasted 3 weeks. I predicted a month, I think, maybe two. Let's see how long this lasts. This time I say about a week or untill people from alternative technology providers realise huawei owns a few crucial 5g patents.

    • Patents are irrelevant if the state chooses not to enforce them on the basis of national security.

      • Agreed, and that's a slippery slope all around. If China ignored patents the way they ignore copyright the whole world is going to be in a world of hurt.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          China does ignore patents and copyright. Hence why they have a state-sponsored tech company like Huawei. Their switches are copies of yesteryears Cisco Catalyst platform and Cisco let them do it in the hopes of getting a foothold in their market.

          What these companies that let China roam free for the last few decades didn't (want to) realize, is that, like the Soviet Union, China controls the means of production, their market and by extension, their population - trade internal to China require fealty to the l

          • "On July 11, 1986, Bosack and Lougheed were forced to resign from Stanford and the university contemplated filing criminal complaints against Cisco and its founders for the theft of its software, hardware designs, and other intellectual properties."

            Right.

    • China ignores our patents. We should ignore theirs.

  • What about radio communications? The Chinese are burrowed in to that market like a tick, I know of many municipal, state, and quasi-municipal/state departments that use Chinese radios from companies like Hytera, instead of USA made Kenwood and Motorola, due to price. If you are going to declare economic warfare on a country, why not target all potential threat vectors.

    • Theory: U.S. intelligence found out about Huawei's backdoor and said, "Hey, we know you're doing this so we'll keep quiet about it if you'll let us use it too."

      The answer was no. The rest is history.

    • Why should American tax dollars ever go to China? All that does is fund the Chinese government, which isn't our friend. Our tax dollars should be supporting American businesses, not their Chinese competitors who, let's face it, cheat. They're heavily subsidized by the government, which partially owns pretty much every business they have.

      Chinese suppliers should not even be considered by any level of government seeking bids. Including nominally American businesses with Chinese owners or that has all i

      • Amen brother, I've been preaching this for years. As a former Marine that served his country during Desert Shield/Storm and being told it was to protect freedom and the American way of life I fee used. China (and communism/socialism in general) need to be dealt with by a united world effort. Supporting these types of governments is, as you stated, "beyond stupid" for any freedom loving country.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

Close