121–130 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is 'this'? Sarcasm or not following groupthink?
Post unsubstantive comments, especially snarky or indignant ones. There's obviously no 'groupthink' on HN about Huawei.
It's funny how you felt you had to use the word 'obviously'...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Post unsubstantive comments, especially snarky or indignant ones. There's obviously no 'groupthink' on HN about Huawei.
My comment was 'substantive', as you put it. Sarcastic, but substantive. It's funny how you felt you had to use the word 'obviously'...
Actually though, the word 'groupthink' usually isn't about anything other than oneself. It's a form of internet preening: I the noble freethinker, towering above the deluded masses in whose midst I deign to glide. In other words, a middlebrow 'sheeple'. (Sorry if that feels like I'm picking on you personally; I don't mean to.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Chinese influence, how politically corrupt they are, and the excessive violence and human rights violations exercised against minorities." I know your heart is in the right place, but you could replace China with "The US" or "Russia" or "North Korea" or "colonial Britain" or almost any other country and it would be true. Those who wouldn't be worthy of the list are those who've never had the resources or opportunity…
> you could replace China with "The US" or "Russia" or "North Korea" or "colonial Britain" or almost any other country and it would be true. Those who wouldn't be worthy of the list are those who've never had the resources or opportunity to make the list. Many Western countries have a checkered past, but it's not exactly as though present citizens of the West were directly involved in the atrocities committed in the…
That wasn't my intention, although it can easily be read like that. My intention is for the potentially "ignorant of some history" parent-poster to be provided with some context around the current situation, ie. it does not exist in a vacuum, and has been strongly influenced by the actions and policies of the leadership of non-Chinese countries and companies.
The citizens of all countries are the victims in this. The significant majority (99+%) of the world population are caught in situations created or influenced by a very small minority of people (some of which were democratically voted for, but then that turns into a much more complex debate).
I intentionally started my comment with "I know your heart is in the right place" to make it (hopefully) clear that I wasn't directing any accusations toward the parent poster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Chinese influence, how politically corrupt they are, and the excessive violence and human rights violations exercised against minorities." I know your heart is in the right place, but you could replace China with "The US" or "Russia" or "North Korea" or "colonial Britain" or almost any other country and it would be true. Those who wouldn't be worthy of the list are those who've never had the resources or opportunity…
All that is true. Howver. Given the choice, I would much prefer to live in the US (or US-dominated/sponsored West) than in China, Russia, Middle East etc. US has better economic, legal and political systems. It doesn't discriminate against foreigners or religions, allows foreigner people and companies to compete in the markets and make enormous amounts of money, it has one of the most transparent and stable political…
If it came down to choosing sides, I wouldn't be defecting to China or Russia.
But I won't, ever, outsource my critical thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Chinese influence, how politically corrupt they are, and the excessive violence and human rights violations exercised against minorities." I know your heart is in the right place, but you could replace China with "The US" or "Russia" or "North Korea" or "colonial Britain" or almost any other country and it would be true. Those who wouldn't be worthy of the list are those who've never had the resources or opportunity…
> And they did, and here we are, and all the countries that host companies that contributed to this are now having a cry about the actions of the monster they profited from creating. But did they really profit? Let's assume for a second that the media isn't one monolithic entity governed by suits in a smokey board room but by many competing entities with opposing and dynamic economic incentives, like the public's fat…
No, happiness has not increased (maybe fairly-floss happiness has increased, that short term heavy-crash happiness that people get from new/shiny things - but I don't count that towards general societal happiness). Fear and paranoia has increased. (my opinion).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US companies comply with laws governed by an independent judiciary and monitored by a free press. China has none of those.
Honestly, China is probably worse, but it's not like the USA is the shining beacon of freedom and democracy. Or is Brett Kavanaugh an honorable man? We are all sort of guilty, we want our cheap goods (clothes, smartphones) and look away when the news talks about garment factories collapsing in Bangladesh, or when the Chinese phone factory workers commit suicide. I enjoy a high living standard, I don't think the way t…
>Vodafone said in the report that Huawei would need to remove or inhibit a so-called telnet service—a protocol used to control devices remotely—that the carrier said was a backdoor giving Huawei access to sensitive data. This seems like a diagnostic telnet port left open by accident. I'm very sceptical at this point at any American government or media finding a 'backdoor' in Huawei. A backdoor implies this is intenti…
It's not just American government or media who are wary of Huawei. It's EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK etc.
The UK are being threatened by the American government because the UK intends to continue using Huawei equipment.
EU has specifically said the American government's narrative will NOT be taken into account. The EU will do their own due diligence.
As an aside: I would hazard a guess that Germany isn't paying much attention to the American government's narrative due to the well-documented bugging of Angela Merkel's phone by US spooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't worked for large companies have you? Intel ME is NOT a backdoor. It may have vulnerabilities, sure. But none explicitly put in there. It was designed for a specific purpose- troubleshooting enterprise computers. And it does that job amazingly well. No more IT guy guiding me when he can just do all the clicks himself.
It doesn't matter if it's a deliberate backdoor or not. It's a door, and I want to be able to close that door if I'm not using it, and Intel won't let me. Reducing attack surface is a security best practice exactly because any software can have bugs. An allegory: imagine if an OS ran an SSH server and there was no way to turn it off or to control the keys it accepts. Maybe it has no bugs (you can't see the source cod…
Telnet on the other hand is a service that I can switch off or block with far less work involved in normal circumstances.
To get rid of Intel ME I'd need to use Core-/LibreBoot and install it in a ritual that for a novice has something of a "black magic rite".
Hard to know from the article, and Bloomberg does not have a good track record, if the 'backdoor' was a vulnerability , an unwanted feature or an actual backdoor. I might imagine a Chinese headline with "US firm Intel backdoors every CPU", which may or may not be true depending on your feelings on Intel ME
Intel ME _is_ a backdoor. The funny thing is that there are many more. Interesting how the EU is dealing with this - most media seems to focus on how badly china could be spying while the US proved they aren't trustworthy long before.