UK May Drop Huawei From Planned 5G Networks (theguardian.com) 133
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
The National Cyber Security Agency in the UK is expected to conclude that U.S. sanctions against Huawei will make it impossible to use the Chinese company's technology as planned for 5G networks. The emergency review, announced on Sunday, is designed to pave the way for Downing Street to push for the total elimination of Huawei equipment in British phone networks by 2023 and quell a Conservative backbench revolt.
That move will amount to a hasty reversal of the policy announced by ministers in January to limit Huawei to 35% of the British 5G network supply. It also risks irritating China and adding hundreds of millions of costs to BT and other phone companies...
In early May, the U.S. said it would impose fresh sanctions against Huawei as part of a long-running campaign against the company, whose technology, the White House claims, could be exploited by China to conduct surveillance against the west. The U.S. sanctions, due to be introduced in September, would prevent Huawei from using U.S. semiconductors and software to build 5G equipment and force it to source alternatives, most likely from China. Whitehall sources said the threatened U.S. restrictions meant that any review would almost certainly say that Huawei posed a security risk. A particular concern was that Huawei would become reliant on unfamiliar and untested components, which could be exploited...
Leaks on Friday suggested that Downing Street was preparing the ground for a dramatic climbdown.
That move will amount to a hasty reversal of the policy announced by ministers in January to limit Huawei to 35% of the British 5G network supply. It also risks irritating China and adding hundreds of millions of costs to BT and other phone companies...
In early May, the U.S. said it would impose fresh sanctions against Huawei as part of a long-running campaign against the company, whose technology, the White House claims, could be exploited by China to conduct surveillance against the west. The U.S. sanctions, due to be introduced in September, would prevent Huawei from using U.S. semiconductors and software to build 5G equipment and force it to source alternatives, most likely from China. Whitehall sources said the threatened U.S. restrictions meant that any review would almost certainly say that Huawei posed a security risk. A particular concern was that Huawei would become reliant on unfamiliar and untested components, which could be exploited...
Leaks on Friday suggested that Downing Street was preparing the ground for a dramatic climbdown.
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The British government is pushing for a no-deal brexit, which means it desperately needs a trade deal with the US. The US has already signalled that it won't allow us to do trade deals with China and must adopt their rules and trade sanctions.
So much for taking back control.
Re: (Score:1)
Not like they'd have more backbone in the EU. The EU folded right quick on Iran.
Although to chose to take a stand against the US for the benefit of Pooh bear and his mercantilist robbery of western industry and knowhow wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense. Sometimes it's really just better to let Team America make the hard choices for you .. and provide a shield for the blowback.
Re:Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU trades with both China and the US. It's too big to be forced to do what the US wants. We used to be part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
WELL BUCKLE-UP KIDDO, you're chained to us now. hahahahahaha, don't worry we'll put you on something easy like gunning down refugees.
Re: Context (Score:1, Interesting)
The world has always been about might makes right and the big eat the small. The UK has chosen to stick with a reasonably non-evil country as master as opposed to going to China, a reasonably evil country. As for Europe, they'll slowly come around as China's evil becomes ever more blatant and they can no longer pretend to ignore it.
The UK mistake here
Re: Context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Context (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly I fear the damage may already be done. Many people are looking at the US as an unreliable partner now. Sometimes you get a good 4 years, sometimes you get a bad 4 years, and there isn't any way to predict which is coming, and the democratic institutions in place are strong enough to adequately restrain the damage that one person can do.
It's a general weakness of all 2 party highly polarized democracies, but the US is one of the most extreme examples of one. The UK is starting to look similar now.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, should have said "the democratic institutions in place are *not* strong enough to adequately restrain the damage that one person can do."
More stable democracies give the person at the top less power and instead spread it around, with lots of checks and balances. Still not perfect but better than the US/UK systems.
Re: Context (Score:2)
Or no wait, you mean twitter.
What you really mean is the US has an America First president for the first time in generations and that's annoying to our 'allies' who ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But, unlike China, we have not imprisoned and tortured the entire western half of our country
Yes, the US just genocided it. Trail of tears, anyone? Never mind the slavery that continues to this day.
Re: Context (Score:1)
Do you also knock the Italians for what Ancient Rome did?
Lmao, are they paying you to say such stupid shit? And even then you still got your American history wrong. It was Spain that wiped out the west coast natives. But don't let facts stands the way of a good anti-American, pro-CCP rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol sure let's compare something happening in China RIGHT NOW to ancient history
Oh, let's forget that the US is illegally selling arms to Sauidis who are using them to burn children alive. Or the modern day slavery that still very much exists in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com] . How can you call that "civilized"?
It was Spain that wiped out the west coast natives.
Trail Of Tears was not on the west coast, and it done by the US.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: Context (Score:1)
Re: Context (Score:1)
Do you equate some mean tweeting at Iran as war? Do you equate trying to talk with North Korea and then ignoring them as war? Is having a trade dispute with China war? You're a fucking idiot.
Zero wars. Moron.
OTOH, every other single president going back 50 years got us into a shooting war, often several. Real wars. Not some mean tweeting. Wars where real people got shot, bombed, died and infrastructure destroyed in bulk.
Moron.
Re: Context (Score:5, Informative)
On a leash? Complete nonsense, the EU has stood up to US demands on numerous occasions, e.g. data sharing and trade terms that would damage the single market. It regularly regulates US companies that do business here with impunity.
Same with China, the EU has imposed rules like RoHS and China adopted them in order to maintain trading ties.
The UK is now demonstrably weaker on its own, with countries lining up to take advantage of the situation. It's been unable to meaningful concessions from the EU during the negotiations, and in fact has agreed to incredible terms like breaking up the UK with a border down the Irish Sea, something that a previous Prime Minister described as unthinkable.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has chosen to stick with a reasonably non-evil country as master as opposed to going to China, a reasonably evil country.
Evil to whom? Governments and economies generally don't care much about how a country treats its own citizens, and China's trade practices are a known and very stable and quantifiable property that can be assessed as a cost against the benefit of doing more trade.
Unlike a certain other country which in the past 2 years alone has fucked over allies, attempted to start a trade war with basically everyone, screwed up international oil markets, has taken an active policy to screw over the planet, and that's jus
Re: Context (Score:1)
If no one cares about other's subjects (China does not have citizens, citizens have power and rights), then explain why South Africa got sanctioned by the whole planet, Cuba was isolated, Venezuela isolated, Iran isolated, Burma isolated, China on its way to being isolated, and so on.
Just because we
Re: Context (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Now we'll see how relations ripen when various EU countries are defaulting on their loans.
Why did China include onerous penalties in the contract? Is it "just in case" but actually they are loving, friendly neighbors who are going to grant some loan forgiveness? LOL
The US isn't trying to "force" anybody to do anything; various allied countries are part of data-sharing with our much, much larger military intelligence network. We set the rules for access to that system. Right now, various countries are so fri
Re: (Score:3)
That might be the most ill-informed comment on this site for the whole day.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
That might be the most ill-informed comment on this site for the whole day.
User name checks out. (/s)
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes on you, Ivan; I'm a Democrat.
Also, you might want to call up all the world leaders and let them know that you're backing all their loans. Because not all these countries are willing to institute the sort of austerity that would be involved in not defaulting on some loans. Did you hear about the pandemic, and the shutdown? Did you think Germany is going to pay everybody's loans to be neighborly?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The funny part is if you guys actually had to live under Chinese rule you would be pissing your pants. More spoiled Westerners. Yeah I get it: you might have to stand in a seperate visa line when going on your European holiday this year. Big fucking deal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least Uyghurs can go home in the afternoon from a Chinese "concentration camp", unlike the American one in Guantanamo.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is perfectly happy to trade under WTO rules without a trade deal.
A special deal isn't needed for trade to happen.
And most of what you guys promised yourself you'd negotiate from the US are things that aren't legal in the US and that wouldn't be available to be part of trade negotiations.
Why is it that the UK needs some sort of special favors from the US in order to somehow enable them to be in control of their own destiny? If we say no and refuse the favor, you seem to still be in control of your des
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We could trade on WTO rules but it would devastate our economy. For example our food exports would get hit with massive tariffs and are already uncompetitive with US food because we have higher standards that cost more money to maintain.
Having said that our food is already rotting in the fields because the army of EU seasonal workers who usually come here are about to lose their freedom of movement rights, so maybe it's the least of our worries.
Re: (Score:2)
"Waaa, waaa, Uncle Sam, can I have some welfare, I just bit the hand that was feeding me really hard, and I need a handout!"
But look, none of the shit you promised yourselves would be in a trade deal with the US was stuff that is available in trade deals with the US. We have a written Constitution, and written laws. You'd need to believe that some actual, possible trade deal would help you. It would have to look like the other trade deals we have.
And you're coming to us demanding that you're so needy that y
The poodle speaks! (Score:1)
Thanks for the clarification (and it deserves the favorable mod), though I feel a bit of a fool for not seeing the obvious more quickly. My initial reaction was to speculate on deeper motivations. I'm sure my sample is not random, but most of the Brits I know seem to be reasonable people.
My perspective remains that Huawei has given me good value in the past. I don't fully trust any mysterious black box, but I have been able to trust Huawei's more than some others precisely because of the perceived contagio
Re: (Score:2)
but I have been able to trust Huawei's more than some others precisely because of the perceived contagion from the Chinese government. We're living in a twisted world where being suspicious ensures that your products are checked out more carefully than the competitions.
So you trust Huawei phones because the perceived distrust of the Chinese government makes you think that Huawei products are under more scrutiny than say, Apple or Samsung. Have I got that right?
As things stand, I don't see any way for me to continue buying Huawei products. Right now it's looking like I'm going to be forced back to Samsung.
What happened? Did Samsung suddenly become less trustworthy, and therefore under more scrutiny, than Huawei? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
Re: (Score:1)
No, that is not what I said. If you can't understand what I wrote, then perhaps you shouldn't reply to it (and perhaps I shouldn't reply, either). However, you did ask two fairly clear questions, so I will attempt to respond more clearly.
I said nothing about trusting Apple or Samsung, though it would have been possible, even reasonable, to include Samsung under suspicion because of the context. The question of the trustworthiness of Apple is actually quite interesting, but I didn't want to go there. Insofar
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not what I said. If you can't understand what I wrote, then perhaps you shouldn't reply to it
All I did was ask you for clarification. You responding this way is simply hostile to the open exchange of ideas, and reeks of hubris concerning your writing style.
You said this:
"but I have been able to trust Huawei's more than some others precisely because of the perceived contagion from the Chinese government. We're living in a twisted world where being suspicious ensures that your products are checked out more carefully than the competitions."
I then paraphrased your statements with:
"So you trust
Re: (Score:2)
What does this even mean, besides "I'm incapable of a reasoned response"?
Thanks, I'll wear it as a badge of honor - like so many others you've replied to in such a juvenile way.
Z^- infinity (Score:2)
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:1)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Z^-4
Thank you sir (Score:2)
Go baby, go! (Score:2)
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:1)
Z^-6
Re: (Score:1)
The British government is pushing for a no-deal brexit
No, it is not.
https://assets.publishing.serv... [service.gov.uk] doesn't look like 'no deal' to me.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what it is within that document that's so onerous, so unfair, so impossible for the EU to accept?
it desperately needs a trade deal with the US
Why? I seem to recall decades of successful trade with the US with no trade deal. Does this somehow magically stop at some point?
The US has already signalled that it won't allow us to do trade deals with China
I must have missed this. Given that the US has trade with China, and given you're wrong on your previous two points, I'm going to have to assume that you're making this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking the EU to destroy the single market is obviously just trying to shift the blame to them for rejecting such a silly, unrealistic proposal. It has zero chance of ever being accepted and they know it. It was designed to make the negotiations fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking the EU to destroy the single market
Where is that being done?
The UK are using existing EU deals as precedent. They're asking for nothing that the EU hasn't already agreed to in a trade deal with another country.
You're making a curious claim here, and I haven't seen the evidence to support it.
Re: (Score:3)
The fundamental basis of the single market is a level playing field and the same rules everywhere. The UK wants to diverge from EU rules and not be under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, so there go the level playing field and the same rules.
Once that floodgate is open the UK becomes a conduit into the EU for cheap goods undercutting those operating in the single market, and it fatally weakens the EU's negotiating position in external trade deals because the non-negotiable single market becomes negotiable
Re: (Score:2)
The UK wants to diverge from EU rules and not be under the jurisdiction of the EU courts
That's because the UK is not in the EU.
there go the level playing field and the same rules
Bullshit. Canada diverges from EU rules and is not under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. Same for Japan.
the UK becomes a conduit into the EU for cheap goods undercutting those operating in the single market
Isn't this the entire basis for a free trade agreement? We provide fish and engineering excellence to the EU at a low cost, the EU provides us with vegetables and high quality automobiles at low cost.
it fatally weakens the EU's negotiating position in external trade deals because the non-negotiable single market becomes negotiable.
We're not preventing the single market. We're negotiating with the EU to trade with the EU., We're not negotiating with individual countries within the EU to trade wi
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Canada diverges from EU rules and is not under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. Same for Japan.
Yes, but neither of them have the kind of comprehensive free trade agreement that the UK wants. Neither of them share a land border with the EU either, and the Channel is extremely busy too. They are also thousands of kilometres away in very different timezones.
As an example you can't buy financial services from Japanese or Canadian banks in the UK. Many goods are still subject to tariffs and even the ones that are not require a lot of paperwork to import. There is no freedom of movement, although Japanese
Re: (Score:2)
The UK isn't asking for a comprehensive free trade agreement "like the EU's single market is".
It's asking for a free trade agreement. It's asking for visa free travel, not freedom of movement. Its land border is irrelevant to this.
You keep bleating on about the single market and it's just not fucking relevant.
Just what is the UK asking for that's unreasonable? I've cited their proposal, tell me which page and section is so objectionable, and why?
Re: (Score:2)
It's asking for a free trade agreement. It's asking for visa free travel, not freedom of movement. Its land border is irrelevant to this.
You can bleat about irrelevance all you want but you want a deal from the EU and they care about the border, therefore it is relevant whether or not you personally want it to be. We promised that border would be so open as to be invisible.
Just what is the UK asking for that's unreasonable? I've cited their proposal, tell me which page and section is so objectionable, and w
Re: (Score:2)
You can bleat about irrelevance all you want but you want a deal from the EU and they care about the border, therefore it is relevant
The land border is fucking irrelevant to whether the UK wants a deal or no-deal. The UK wants a deal. The EU want the UK to be subservient to the EU, want the UK to fund the EU, want to strip UK waters of fish and want to send low skilled EU workers to the UK to undermine our wages and then send their money back to the EU.
None of that is fucking relevant to the fact that the UK would like a deal with the EU.
Why would the EU not drive the hardest bargain it can?
Why not indeed. I haven't argued otherwise.
I was challenging the idiotic suggestion that the British
Re: (Score:2)
The land border is fucking irrelevant to whether the UK wants a deal or no-deal.
You're delusional. We made a promise to the Republic of Ireland to have an invisible border and that was implemented using the existing deal we had. We cannot keep our promise without some sort of deal, because countries without some sort of agreement don't have open borders with each other.
The EU want the UK to be subservient to the EU, want the UK to fund the EU
So, the EU want EU courts to be in charge of EU rules and don't wa
Re: (Score:2)
You're delusional. We made a promise to the Republic of Ireland to have an invisible border and that was implemented using the existing deal we had. We cannot keep our promise without some sort of deal, because countries without some sort of agreement don't have open borders with each other.
If the Republic of Ireland wants to obey EU diktats instead of keeping an open border then that's an issue between the Republic of Ireland and the EU. The UK doesn't have to agree open borders with the EU in order to reach such an agreement with RoI.
ImMiGrUnTs ArE hErE fOr OuR JoBs.
Maybe you haven't fucking noticed the fucking aircraft landing full of fucking Romanians to do fucking manual work at a wage level that UK people can't fucking afford to live.
Yes, they're very fucking explicitly here for our jobs. The evidence is there. It's pre
Re: (Score:2)
If the Republic of Ireland wants to obey EU diktats
Honouring deals is "following diktats". No wonder you're so pissed off with the EU; you believed all the shite from the Tories about how it would be sunshine and rainbows.
The UK doesn't have to agree open borders with the EU in order to reach such an agreement with RoI.
An open border with the ROI is an open border with the EU, you numpty.
Maybe you haven't fucking noticed the fucking aircraft landing full of fucking Romanians to do fucking manual work at a
Re: (Score:2)
Honouring deals is "following diktats".
Deals can be changed. It's also possible to agree a deal with an EU country without engaging with the EU itself - as an example, see the agreements between the UK and France regarding migrants in Calais.
If the RoI want free movement, the UK is offering it. If they can't convince the EU that they should have the sovereignty to decide that for themselves then perhaps they'll finally fucking understand why the UK left.
An open border with the ROI is an open border with the EU, you numpty.
No. Free movement for Irish people is very different to free movement for everybody in the EU
Re: (Score:2)
No. Free movement for Irish people is very different to free movement for everybody in the EU.
OK, you're a total fuckwit. You can't even be bothered to listen to what the EU says before declaring "ThE Eu iS EvIl WhAt AbOuT My SoVeReIgNtY". It's about, goods you moron, goods.
The 'remain' vote lost. Get over it already. Stop trying to fight for an already lost cause.
And here you are, a brexiteer pissing and moaning about how the EU isn't giving you everything you wanted.
Re: Context (Score:1)
"You're full of accusations and hyperbole, sadly lacking in detail or credibility."
Re: (Score:2)
Servicescope's reply is great but I'd just add that the UK certainly is asking for a comprehensive free trade agreement on all sorts of things. Zero tariffs on many items, which means there must be a level playing field or some mitigating factor like the fact that Japan is on the other side of the world.
Financial services, a major part of the British economy, are an even bigger ask. They don't just rely on a level playing field, they require a huge amount of data sharing for tax and fraud prevention purpose
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just add that the UK certainly is asking for a comprehensive free trade agreement on all sorts of things
Finally you accept that this was wrong:
The British government is pushing for a no-deal brexit
Re: (Score:2)
Asking for in the expectation it will be denied because it's totally unrealistic, and then they can blame the EU for being "inflexible".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are some elements that will change through negotiation; asking for more than you expect to get isn't negotiating in bad faith, it's best practice.
I'm still waiting to hear why it's "totally unrealistic". Which parts? The ones where the UK expects control over its own waters? The ones where the UK gets to control its own laws? The ones where the UK requires control over its own borders? The ones where the UK seeks an equitable trade relationship?
You're full of accusations and hyperbole, sadly
Re: (Score:2)
The ones where the UK expects control over its own waters? The ones where the UK gets to control its own laws? The ones where the UK requires control over its own borders? The ones where the UK seeks an equitable trade relationship?
Yes, all those.
Control over waters is dumb because fish migrate and anyway most of the fish caught by the UK is exported anyway. If we don't have close cooperation it will just be back to the cod wars and over-fishing.
Control over our own laws is dumb because we are just selling them to the lowest bidder, most likely the US which is already demanding changes to our rules. As part of the EU we only only controlled our own laws but had them protected from powerful nations making demands in exchange for trade
Re: (Score:1)
What a fucking imbecile.
Re: Context (Score:1)
Y"ou're full of accusations and hyperbole, sadly lacking in detail or credibility."
Re: Context (Score:1)
You mean what the BBC reported isn't true?
Re: (Score:2)
The UK are using existing EU deals as precedent. They're asking for nothing that the EU hasn't already agreed to in a trade deal with another country.
Let's assume your claim is correct.
The EU's job is to look after the interests of the EU, which means upholding the principles of the EU and getting the best possible deals for the EU. The EU has us over a barrel. Over half the entire worldwide trade of the UK is with the EU, whereas something like 14% of their trade is with us. It's like a mini playing chicke
Re: (Score:2)
complaining about how the EU won't give you a deal that you want
I must have missed that, could you quote the part where I complained about the EU negotiating on behalf of the EU?
I can if you like. The EU is negotiating an indefensible position that will gravely damage itself when the UK refuses to accept terms you wouldn't impose on a country you defeated in a war. When German car manufacturers, French and Dutch farmers and other EU industries all realise that they're going to suffer terrible disadvantages in the UK market because the EU is playing politics instead of s
Re: (Score:2)
I must have missed that, could you quote the part where I complained about the EU negotiating on behalf of the EU?
You're literally moaning about the EU wanting to impose its rules on us.
The EU is negotiating an indefensible position that will gravely damage itself when the UK refuses to accept terms you wouldn't impose on a country you defeated in a war.
We're free to not accept their terms now just as we were free to choose to reject the set of terms under which we were in the EU. Leaving a club then whin
Re: Context (Score:1)
It is just absurd destructive fantasy, without any group ding in reality or understanding of the world, "Cedrick".
Re: (Score:2)
AmiMoJo never admits when they are wrong. People have proven AmiMoJo wrong with citations and evidence more times that I can recall. It does not matter, AmiMoJo lacks the maturity required for mea culpa. Science means nothing to AmiMoJo, evidence is ignored, logic is ignored. AmiMoJo parrots talking points from sources that often lack a factual basis. I have no idea where they come from or AmiMojo just makes them up.
Now I am going to give credit to AmiMoJo, insofar as that I do not think AmiMoJo is simply a
Not what you think (Score:5, Funny)
When questioned, the UK said "why would we install 5G towers, they keep spontaneously combusting all over the world".
Re: Not what you think (Score:2)
Well, that is the best way. . . (Score:1)
. . . to insure there's no "Chinese CoronaVirus" in your 5G.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you censor your internet it is going to be full of Wuflu and Pooh Bear all sorts of sordid things.
Even the Wizard of Id, which of course Pooh Bear would have you executed for in his country.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . to insure there's no "Chinese CoronaVirus" in your 5G.
This goes out to whoever's humorectomy caused them to mod you down: Whoooooosh!
US ought to know, after Iraq in 1990-1991 (Score:5, Interesting)
In early May, the U.S. said it would impose fresh sanctions against Huawei as part of a long-running campaign against the company, whose technology, the White House claims, could be exploited by China to conduct surveillance against the west.
Also disruption if it ever came to conflict.
And after Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the US ought to know.
One of the reasons the operations went so well, according to a few reports at the time, was that the US had infiltrated and first tapped, then at critical times sabotaged, the Iraqui military's digital network.
As I recall, part of that involved subverting Cisco routers. (Details not published at the time, though a dive into Snowden's leaks might find traces or descendants of the hacks.)
And it's an interesting connection, since Huawei apparently bootstrapped into the networking business by cloning Cisco's equipment - and software, as evidenced by the presence in the object code of unpublished Cisco software diagnostic messages.
History may not repeat per se, but it does rhyme - a lot.
Re: US ought to know, after Iraq in 1990-1991 (Score:2, Informative)
gee, you think??? (Score:1, Insightful)
They've never disavowed any of the nasty past e.g. Mao's massacres or Tiananmen Square. They've been on a roll for empire the last 5 years. Now China is fucking UK on even the coerced agreement for the premature handover of Hong Kong.
Flee now, or be China's pony.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You're hilarious, the USA has caused more mass murder and maimings in the world since Tiananmen Square than China has. Even supported more ethnic cleansing with higher body count than China. Just as example, giving Saddam billions of dollars and dual use technology to gas a hundred thousand.
You should be more worried about being the pony of the corporate fascists in Washington D.C., that's the real enemy of the American people and the real danger to our freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
As for our self destructive overseas operations, it is past time to come home.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that nonsense about death row inmates in China getting organ harvested is Falun Gong propaganda, it's bullshit. Fact is China requires written consent for organ donations.
I'll be the first to agree China is ruled by evil dirt bags that trample on liberties, but then so is the USA.
Meanwhile, in the USA, the President is threatening to withhold pandemic aid from states that allow absentee voting, which has been legal in the United States for over one and a half centuries, because that would encourage m
Re:gee, you think??? (Score:4, Informative)
Now China is fucking UK on even the coerced agreement for the premature handover of Hong Kong.
Oh, go and read a book will you?
Hong Kong was leased by Britain from China, (at the point of a gun) and the lease was up.
If Britain was still a world power, they no doubt would have tried to renegotiate the lease, but they're not.
Hong Kong is, and always has been part of China, and the only reason it is not some tiny fishing village is because the banks wanted somewhere in Asia to hide their stolen money. Britain has always been happy to help with that.
Re: (Score:1)
The Korean and Vietnam wars were just obvious proxies against China. The US coerced their allies (e.g. UK, France and others) to keep China out of the UN, WTO and other global organisations. Why would Chinese politicians tell the truth to their ideological enemies unless it was is in their interests to do so?
Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Huawei doesn't make sense for the Western World, which is actively being challenged by China. Projection of soft power, IP theft, corporate espionage, coercive One Belt contracts with vulnerable or shortsighted countries along China's interest, threatening Hong Kong, unilateral appropriation of the South China sea, enjoying the extent the West is exposed to Chinese manufacturing including electronics, propping up rouge or corrupt regimes like North Korea, Iran, Syria or Putin's crew, etc. etc. China has bee
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
It is one of the biggest and nastiest sticks in the Chinese counter-sanctions arsenal and you have to be terminally dumb to set yourself up for a beating with it the way the UK has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting a ZERO Huawei quota or ZERO Huawei condition allows it to withhold its IPR an licenses from anyone who ships to replace it.
Do you have a link where more information about this statement could be found? Would be really appreciated. Surely the competitors have the licenses for the equipment and the UK / US government is doing the banning so these do not interact? Are you claiming that the license for use of the technology (by a network) is not guaranteed by the license to build the equipment (by a vendor)?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you claiming that the license for use of the technology (by a network) is not guaranteed by the license to build the equipment (by a vendor)?
I am claiming that the standard RAND language used by most standards organizations implies non-discrimination of any of the participants.
Using the RAND clause as a countermeasure against discrimination has NEVER been tested in court, but there is always a first. The way USA is playing this game it is only a matter of time until someone deploys it.
What are the alternatives? (Score:2)
Alcatel-Lucent? Nokia? Siemens?
I am really wondering!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What are the alternatives? (Score:2)
With a price ratio close to 2:1 with Huawei, I suspect their are all gone.
is this about US spy (cough) hardware? (Score:1)
all the chatter seems to be about China, what i would like to know is what will replace Huawei, where will it come from, and can it be _trusted_?
sorry, don't have time to read all the comments properly, are the details somewhere i can read about it?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who communicates electronically needs to assume that relying on someone else's encryption will not give them much security. Apart from anything else, closed source code has a reputation of being complete crap. Why not require Huawei to provide the specs good enough to allow open source code on their kit as a condition of purchase.
Meanwhile if you want to hide something, dont use a cell phone. Or you could use a one-time-pad. Anyone with access to a shell can write a script to use any binary code book of their choice - eg a jpg (or cat video) as found on the internet.
If Internet banking is susceptible to Huawei, then there are probably far more dangerous parties to watch out for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the US tech is exactly the same, I don’t trust China any less then Retardistan.
Not really relevant. a) the US has the technology to monitor everyone anyway b) the network elements are all produced by Scandinavian companies. There are no US 5G vendors. You might assume that Scandinavians work with the US however.
Re: (Score:2)