71–80 of 659 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems
It seems like the US Government has a serious axe to grind with Huawei.
I would not look forward to being an American businessman abroad in China right now. I think we're all used to the fiction that we live in a world that's totally governed by fairness and laws. That's been a pretty useful fiction for a long time, and in (some) of the developed world that's basically been how it's worked. But I really wonder how many shocks this system can take. I would bet money that an important US e…
Seriously. It's this fiction that makes me believe that, despite it's flaws, America (along with other democratic countries) is a beacon compared to the rest of the world. A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws is so different than a country locking up said foreigner out of retaliation, which is what I imagine China will end up doing.
This is one of the most interesting cases I've seen:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But yeah, if this is the game that the nations are going to play, then you don't want to be the poor schmuck sitting in a Chinese prison for 10 years just so they can make a point. Facilitating deals with Iran to deliver US products in defiance of US sanctions seems like something the average schmuck hopefully isn't getting mixed up in. It's not quite the same as accidentally violating some random domestic business…
But on general grounds, why a Chinese company should comply with sanctions between US and Iran? And why a fourth country is arresting Chinese citizens violating US rules? I am sure most of us break UAE laws on being with members of opposite gender without a chaperone and even post pictures of class reunions, etc. But I'm not expecting to be arrested for this while visiting, say, Sweden.
In general, they don't have to. Only to the extent they want to continue doing business with the US do they have to comply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just watch them come up with something.
Not sure what you mean. They have come up with something - violating sanctions against Iran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? US is alleging Huawei was shipping "U.S.-origin" products to Iran - probably U.S. made components for Huawei devices/technology. What "authority" do you need to ask for a favor from a friendly ally? Canada also has active economic sanctions against Iran.
Hi there, just want to remind you of the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.
For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805
...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.)
That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.
Extraditing someone to the US for violating US sanctions against Iran aligns pretty well with Canada's interests right now.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Iran_relations
double standard? I dont recall seeing any of the Bluecoat (Symantec now) CEO's cuffed at the airport when hackers found Bluecoat hardware in Syria... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems It seems like the US Government has a serious axe to grind with Huawei.
I also wonder what this is going to do to Canada's real estate market considering that Canada has basically been a "safe haven" for Chinese nationals to flock to basically launder their money.
It's difficult to take housing issues in Vancouver seriously because paranoia nonsense like "all Chinese are money launderers" just wouldn't stop coming. As soon as a discussion happens, it gets swarmed by (dare I say it) bigots and immediately derailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi there, just want to remind you of the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.
I have mixed feelings about this rule because it genuinely feels like the majority of comments come from people who aren't reading most of the article. For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805 ...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.) That does get very frustrating. I understand the premi…