Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google suspends some business with Huawei

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 506 posts

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#491

Post by windexh8er »

pvg wrote: post #488
windexh8er wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I respect your opinion I don't agree. First of all PRISM was not purely "a system for handling paperwork for lawful intercepts", see [0]. Second your assertion assumes that somehow all requests within these programs abided by "lawful purpose", which we also know is not true. Whether FISA rubber stamps were lawful is subjective and your opinion but not fact. Your answer purports a black and white perspective on…

It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.

But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1].

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi...

[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...

Just because it was never settled that way doesn't change the history of it.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#492

Post by babyloneleven »

roca wrote: post #296
techntoke wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American-manufactured devices are probably equally as infiltrated by American foreign intelligence services. Hence why they don't just use a standard Linux distro with open source firmware.

Even if it was true that American phone companies are infiltrated by American intelligence services, you have to ask yourself which government you trust more. As a New Zealander, I think there are very good reasons to trust the US government a lot more. Heck, if you look at where Chinese officials try to stash their money and their families, it's clear they trust Western countries a lot more too.

Of course I trust China more. China never militarily supported a coup in my country.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#493

Post by parliament32 »

crehn wrote: post #425
jrockway wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLS is still legal. So is routing all your traffic through Tor if you think the metadata is relevant. I can't imagine much useful material comes from wiretapping these days. Maybe once in a while, but the real value largely exists in the application layer, which is obtained in a different way.

When TLS is everywhere, what's the most reasonable way for law enforcement to surveil suspects?

Bottom-up. The FBI sees that you're having a TLS conversation at X time with a server in Facebook's IP range, so they just go ask Facebook for what you were doing at that time.

Foreign-hosted services seem like they'd be hard to crack, but it's extremely likely their data flows though Cloudflare, Amazon, GCE, or a similar US-based company.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#494

Post by parliament32 »

Despegar wrote: post #199
shshhdhs wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely because Apple gave China the master encryption keys: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/25/apple-moves-icloud-encrypt...

iMessage is end-to-end encrypted.

How do you think iMessages are "restored" when you lose your iPhone and get a new one?

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#495

Post by niutech »

jmkni wrote: post #451
morpheuskafka wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if that app depends on Google Play Services, which most developers targeting "Android" take for granted.

I guess they could provide their own implementations of the Google Play Services API's?

It's already done: https://microg.org

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#496

Post by niutech »

ETHisso2017 wrote: post #281
yskchu wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between Huawei's situation and Microsoft's situation is that Microsoft's app store is not compatible with Android or IOS (obviously, different OS) While if Huawei uses the Android open source base, the only thing they have to do is entice developers to submit another copy of their app to their store, which is a much lower barrier than the one MS faced to develop a whole new ecosystem

The barrier would be that many Android apps also leverage Google's in-built services, which would be unavailable on the upcoming generation of Huawei phones. The question then becomes to what degree could someone replicate those services, and how quickly.

There is already microG: https://microg.org

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#497

Post by whitenation1488 »

Leary wrote: post #95
onei wrote: post #72

I guess this is a thinly veiled attack on China, but I'm a bit confused why there's a feud between the US and China in the first place. Perhaps my ignorance is down to being British and a bit out of the loop, but could someone give a rough outline on what the underlying motives for this are?

China is the only country that can threaten the US' status as the number one superpower in the world. Huawei's lead in 5G technology is broadly seen in Washington as a threat to US interests even though the US government has no concrete evidence of wrong doing.

China is just dumb labor, they steal technology from us by sending immigrants to the US.

These immigrants then steal our technology to send back to china

they also steal technology by sending students to our schools

the Chinese cannot and will not innovate.

To stop China we need to ban all Chinese immigration and start educating real americans in our schools and not Chinese spies

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#498

Post by tptacek »

windexh8er wrote: post #491
pvg wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.

But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi.…

No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still grinding its way through the top of your "Read It Later" list.

You could have made the argument you were trying to make colorably and defensibly. All you had to do was not try to sound like you'd been "read in" to NSA's SIGINT programs. But, like I said above: you managed to cite one of the few NSA program examples that is in fact totally banal and, ironically, an almost perfect example of lawful intercept.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#499

Post by brownbat »

brownbat wrote: post #259
gameswithgo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the could make the phone an actual computer. that can download and run apps from where-ever. many of us are starving for that.

Agree in principle, though can't we get that by just allowing unauthorized sources? I guess you don't get the relative security of app stores, and there's no widespread culture of free apps on phones like on PCs. I'd really love, not a new phone or OS, but just an app store that works under a different model. Cheap or free for developers to post, but curated to exclude the most predatory forms of monetization.

I thought about this more this week.

How do we solve the trusted app problem on PCs?

We don't install whatever random thing comes up in google. We look for a trusted recommendation.

App stores are just teaching us that it's ok to install any app, which is not necessarily the best security model.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#500

Post by windexh8er »

tptacek wrote: post #498
windexh8er wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi.…

No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world…

So... 702 and PRISM aren't still being litigated? It's fun to watch you twist reality with this type of non-informational response. I get with the above you'd like people to assume that, instead, you've been "read in" on the subject matter. But not all of what you've outlined here is the _whole truth_.
Post reply on HN