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

Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#161

Post by repolfx »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #146
Bendingo wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when does the US set laws for Huawei? The attitude that the whole world must obey US laws is being increasingly rejected. And not before time.

they set the law for companies that want to do business in and with the USA, anything else would just lead to ridiculous shell games where corporations could break laws with impunity by farming it out to "completely independent foreign companies". Its fine if Huawei doesn't want to follow US law, but they shouldn't expect to do business with Americans or American companies either.

These aren't American companies. America's actual position is something more like this:

"If you do business in any way with any Americans at any point, regardless of who you are or where you're based, then you will be thrown in jail the moment we can get your hands on you, if you do business with anyone on this list, or with anyone who does not implement our rules either"

See how companies like ARM are being forced to stop doing business with Huawei despite not being American companies. It's massive overreach.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#162

Post by panarky »

dmix wrote: post #85
maratd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am kind of surprised that neither Deutsche Post[0] nor ZTO[1] nor SF Express[2] shares are up on the news. Why would they be up on the news? They're just as likely to be engaging in the same behavior, only for a different set of government actors.

Intercepting it in the US or within their own country is one thing. Rerouting a document being sent from Japan to China to the US multiple times is most certainly not a common thing mail services would do for intelligence agencies. Getting a private company operating in a foreign country to do your intelligence work so blatantly is certainly news worthy. Maybe not stock price shifting news though.

If the packages really were intentionally diverted, it's entirely possible Fedex didn't knowingly participate with the spooks.

Fedex has thousands of customer service agents with the ability to change package destinations for legitimate purposes.

Is any company's security is so strong they can prevent employees from independently cooperating with governments?

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#163

Post by csomar »

strooper wrote: post #43

Not related to this package delivery drama, but the way we are observing the live demolition of the world largest networking equipment maker and second largest smartphone maker (by number) in the name of trade war will never bring back the confidence in those who are flexing muscle. The illusion of the rule of law, free world, globalization and the reality of control is simply frightening, and worrisome.

> The illusion of the rule of law, free world, globalization and the reality of control is simply frightening, and worrisome.

There has never been an absolute "rule of law". The rule of law is always protected and uphold by the government military. Otherwise, what to prevent your neighbour from killing you and taking your assets. There must be someone more powerful and armed than him.

The government uses the "power of law" idea to make people happy and mentally stable. But it'll use power when need be. The US bombed japan with nuclear weapons and will redo it again to protect its interests.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#164

Post by partiallypro »

cyphar wrote: post #116
partiallypro wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could be being paranoid, or they could be feeding mistrust of American corporations because the US has lead people to mistrust them. Russia has used similar tactics in the past to counter US measures.

The NSA has broken into Huawei's systems in the past[1]. I think it's more than reasonable for them to explore the possibility that this is a continuation of that pattern. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/23/latest-snowden-allegations...

Right...but the NSA wasn't so stupid in the past to leave a FedEx redirect message during an intercept. So, that's why the entire theory is nonsense. If they were intercepting, Huawei would have no idea, and would not be left with a FedEx change of status.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#165

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

threezero wrote: post #136
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the US have jurisdiction? This is a legitimate question. What legal right does the US government have to enforce US laws on a foreigner who isn't in the US, for actions taken outside the US and which were not illegal in the country the person resides in? I'd legitimately like to know what sort of legal argument is used to justify this, because it sounds like a massive overreach by the United States. Regard…

The US has a reciprocal agreement with Canada. These agreements are the basis for jurisdiction.

I'm not just asking why Canada is handing over the Huawei CFO. I'm asking how the US has jurisdiction to even prosecute the supposed underlying crime. The connection of any of her actions to the United States is extremely tenuous and indirect. They occurred outside the United States, were legal in the country where they occurred, she doesn't work for an American company, she's not an American, and she wasn't even dealing with an American company. Just imagine what it would be like if every country began applying its domestic law extraterritorially in such an aggressive manner.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#166

Post by sixothree »

quink wrote: post #57
sixothree wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd like to see someone break the Apple/Google dual-olopy. I am not sure that will happen here. But it sure does seem like that is the trajectory for China.

It’s not the trajectory, apart from a reliance on ARM the Android experience in China is pretty independent of anything overseas already, lacking the Play Store and all.

https://www.techradar.com/news/huaweis-os-to-be-rolled-out-n...

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#168

Post by fqye »

I am Chinese, living in China and have been pro-U.S / democracy my whole life. But the recent actions by Trump government, U.S corporations, Fedex etc., and academics (IEEE etc.) made me angry. The U.S government provided no evidence of Huawai spying or backdoor but acted hysterically to kill Huawei. And your corporations and intellectuals are helping it.

And there are lots of Chinese like me feel the same. Trump and his China haters are pushing away a large group of influential Chinese elites in all different professions, intellectuals, government officials, (yes, there are a lot of pro-U.S / democracy government officials in China), entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors even who used to admire the U.S.

This is far more damaging... There will be cost.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#169

Post by fqye »

wybiral wrote: post #118
grrowl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't.

It also wouldn't be the first time a shipping/logistics error caused a package to be misrouted. The obvious and most probable answer is usually the right answer unless you have evidence otherwise. Not every weird incident is part of some conspiracy.

Four packages... And Huawei called Fedex Vietnam customer service. They explicitly said the package was reouted on request from Fedex U.S.

Check this: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/28/huawei-says-fedex-diverted-p...

According to FedEx’s website, the status “exception” means an unexpected event is preventing delivery of a package, for example a customs delay, a holiday, or no one being available to accept delivery. FedEx declined to give details on what the exception was in this case.

According to Huawei, a FedEx customer service representative in Vietnam replied to their inquiry on May 22 when two expected packages did not arrive on time, saying: “Please be informed that FDX SG received notification from FDX US to hold and return the package to US. Hence, the shipment is not deliver to consignee and now being hold at FDX station and under process to RTS it (return to sender),” the representative wrote in broken English, according to an email Huawei showed to Reuters.

Re: Huawei reviewing FedEx relationship, says packages 'diverted'

#170

Post by locknumber110 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #134
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what gives the US any jurisdiction to demand the arrest of a foreign executive on foreign territory, for acts committed on foreign territory She violated American laws with American products using U.S. dollars for years. She then travelled to an American ally. This is a stupid counter argument.

Where does the US have jurisdiction? This is a legitimate question. What legal right does the US government have to enforce US laws on a foreigner who isn't in the US, for actions taken outside the US and which were not illegal in the country the person resides in? I'd legitimately like to know what sort of legal argument is used to justify this, because it sounds like a massive overreach by the United States. Regard…

>Where does the US have jurisdiction?

Wherever someone might have a real nice country there. Be a shame if a coup happened to it. It's so easy to have an accidental coup, ain't it? I mean, one day you're electing a populist left-of-center leader who's a bit too much of a "world citizen" if you catch my drift, and the next day you've got a business-friendly provisional government managing the crisis by arranging national asset sales to US companies after some lone-wolf bodyguard puts a bullet into that vaguely-leftist president's head and then "kills himself" while in custody. These things just sometimes happen. Be a shame if that happened to your country.

Post reply on HN