121–130 of 171 posts
Hanlon's razor applies here. If there was truly something nefarious going on, why would FedEx update the tracking status to say that the packages were re-routed? Why not just say they were held up in the sending or receiving country?
Regardless of the cause of this particular set of events, corporate media engagement as resistance against state actors is the only logical development that can be expected following the Snowden revelations which confirmed that long-theorized postal interception methods are in use. This creates additional pushback for FedEx who now have to prove they aren't working for US intelligence, or face losing additional custo…
I enjoyed the "FedEx doesn't comment..." policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If US intelligence wanted it, it would simply get put on hold at some foreign facility while agents go through it there (or use that transparent paper spray). Nothing different would be noticed.
What is this transparent paper spray?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The illusion of the rule of law Rule of law has always been national. International politics are anarchic. Huawei quite clearly broke the laws of the United States ( e.g. with respect to Iran), repeatedly and wilfully.
Importing goods to Iran really isn't a violation of US laws, any more than, say, a twenty year old Huawei employee having a beer in Beijing or driving at 120 mph on a German autobahn. The rule of law is indeed national, and legally the US has very little jurisdiction outside its borders. Extralegally, of course, it has plenty of powers to arrest, kill or torture those it doesn't like.
Huawei appears to have known this as well seeing as Meng Wanzhou had fraudently misrepresented the relevant transactions to the banks it was working with.
There was nothing extralegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they want to be able to do it at scale? The ideal approach would be to have packages of the "interesting" kind automatically diverted to a scanning location, and then continue on their way... Dont think of it as them being interested in a single package. They are interested in setting up a mechanism by which ALL packages of interest can be diverted with only very small effort on their part.
If they were doing it at scale this wouldn't be the first time we are reading about it on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Importing goods to Iran really isn't a violation of US laws, any more than, say, a twenty year old Huawei employee having a beer in Beijing or driving at 120 mph on a German autobahn. The rule of law is indeed national, and legally the US has very little jurisdiction outside its borders. Extralegally, of course, it has plenty of powers to arrest, kill or torture those it doesn't like.
The allegations against Huawei aren't that it "imported goods into Iran." The allegations are that it imported American goods into Iran, which is clearly a violation of US export laws. If such laws didn't apply to third-party distributors of American goods, then the only effect of US sanctions would be have foreign distributors exporting American goods rather than American ones. Huawei appears to have known this as w…
You can start to see how far-reaching American sanctions are. A British bank is being told that it cannot do business with a Chinese company, because that Chinese company allegedly controls a Hong Kong company that imported small numbers of American goods into Iran. As I understand it, these sorts of extensive secondary sanctions are not normal, and are a sore point between the US and many countries, including some of its allies (such as France and Germany).
I would be very interested to know what gives the US any jurisdiction to demand the arrest of a foreign executive on foreign territory, for acts committed on foreign territory. Whatever the legal justification, though, this is a very unusual and aggressive step, and one that is transparently motivated by political considerations in the ongoing trade war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they're doing to Huawei will have nefarious consequences to the US. Who can ever trust a country that can use this kind of tactics to destroy a comercial competitor?
China's tactics aren't really any better (allow blatant IP theft). I suppose the only real difference was that this wasn't well-known in advance. It's like the Joker's statement about people losing their shit when something happens unannounced but being orderly when much worse is announced in advance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The illusion of the rule of law Rule of law has always been national. International politics are anarchic. Huawei quite clearly broke the laws of the United States ( e.g. with respect to Iran), repeatedly and wilfully.
Huawei may have broken the law with respect to violating U.S's sanctions on Iran. These are still unproven allegations as of yet. Meanwhile, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan have provably done exactly that. Yet there is only one C-suite level executive who is currently being held personally, criminally liable for corporate actions. I guarantee you won't be seeing Jamie Dimon threatened with pri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s just a bargaining chip. If China meets some of Trumps demands, be prepared to watch all these security reasons disappear like snow on a sunny day.
Basing an argument on a hypothetical future event isn't very convincing. >The order, which will not name specific countries or companies, has been under consideration for more than a year but has repeatedly been delayed, the sources said, asking not to be named because the preparations remain confidential. It could be delayed again, they said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei-tech-exc... Is it your…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/trump-say...