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

U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

barrons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 257 posts

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#201

Post by throwaway4good »

ABeeSea wrote: post #187
throwaway4good wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in tele for a couple of years; the reason Huawei and ZTE got ahead in 5G was that they invested heavily at time when Nokia and Ericsson were focused on cutting cost.

That was only half the premise, the other half was > unfettered access to the teleco networks of the countries that they themselves say are their greatest enemies? Regardless of how they got their tech, that premise is the reason for blocking them.

As for the "unfettered access" stuff; a telco, or at least the one I worked at, doesn't really work like that. We buy products and engineering services from our suppliers but we run our own network, and if we did outsource operations, those engineers would sit on premise and the whole thing would be under our control.

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#202

Post by saurik »

bogomipz wrote: post #166
blurbleblurble wrote: post #144

Why are the stakes so high? Well, research "integrated communications and sensing" to find out. IEEE is pushing this paradigm shift. The radio hardware isn't just being used for communications between active devices anymore. It'll be useable for passive and biometric sensing applications, including but not limited to passive localization and identification of people without phones. Next generation wireless standards…

Could you elaborate on what exactly "integrated communications and sensing" is and why it's so important here. I tried to do some quick reading but I failed to find any good high level overview of what it is. Most of what I was able to find seemed like academic research papers around beam-forming.

The status from 3 years ago was already pretty scary.

https://web.ece.ucsb.edu/~ymostofi/IdentificationThroughWall...

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#203

Post by Kukumber »

iso1631 wrote: post #25
kadoban wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US can decide who its allies are, other countries can do the same for themselves. What are you even objecting to here?

There are a lot of people on HN arguing against sanctioning Russia for invading a sovereign state, they believe that the west should just turn a blind eye to it. It's quite interesting, it's pretty much the only place on the internet I encounter such posts.

Maybe because technical oriented minds better understand the subtleties of the conflict? and are able to methodically read articles like they able able to read through a documentation?

And i don't think people over here advocate against sanctioning Russia, you hear about people against sanctions from the politics, usually from the opposition camp

I think it's pretty clear that everyone here is sanctioning the actors of the war, both actors, the ones who participate in the conflict, and the ones who feed the conflict since 2014

The US complaining about Russia's influence over their elections

And the US meddling with Ukranian ones to promote Zelensky [1]

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape-idUSBREA...

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#204

Post by nyokodo »

toss1 wrote: post #200
factsarelolz wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main effect is that we should not buy key communication equipment from a country we cannot trust. We should not buy anything that is internet connected from a country we cannot trust.

>We should not buy anything that is internet connected from a country we cannot trust. We should not buy anything that has non-dumb components from a country we cannot trust. We should not buy anything that is has high-performance materials that cannot be non-destructively tested from a country we cannot trust. Overall, we should not be buying ANYTHING AT ALL from a country we cannot trust, as literally any trade mer…

> It is past time to embargo them.

Easier said than done when they are the dominant or at least major supplier of many strategic materials. It will take time to find economically viable alternative suppliers. Globalism is rapidly collapsing and China won’t for long be able to remain a reliable trading partner even if they desperately wanted to be, so we ought to be urgently securing sufficient alternative suppliers anyway.

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#205

Post by mardifoufs »

throwaway4good wrote: post #140
putlake wrote: post #127

Here's the inside story of how the ban was years in the making and all the effort it took. From someone in the government at the time the process started: https://twitter.com/JoshuaSteinman/status/159637064508835020...

This is just appalling protectionism; is it really something that we tech people should cheer on?

Are europeans privacy measures just protectionnism too?

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#206

Post by HNDV »

usui wrote: post #81
jser wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many examples, e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/31/16072786/amazon-blu-suspe... . “In November 2016, security firm Kryptowire detected pre-loaded remote surveillance software on BLU phones sold online through Amazon and Best Buy. In August 2017, Amazon pulled BLU Products from its website over security vulnerabilities that resulted in BLU consumer user data being covertly sent to China.”

This.. doesn’t answer my question still. Even if data goes to China, how that data is used, what it is, and by what mechanism is what determines whether it’s a threat or not. Why do we continue to use boogiemen when it comes to explaining threats? Why don’t we apply this kind of scaremongering to any data exfiltration to every shady company ever? Also in your specific reference: > “Now almost a year later, the device…

I find it interesting how democrats fell into a pit that I used to think was something only Trump and his ilk followed.

The two parties really are the same at the core. One may pretend to be conservative and the other screech in woke language but they always converge on the parts that actually matter like geopolitics.

When Trump duked it out against China, democrats pretended to be offended. Now, democrats are in power, and they're pushing even harder to ban China.

The US is such a sham democracy.

You will not hear anything from the brainwashed apart from "things coming from China are bad because it's China !111!" when in reality those bans exist because American companies simply are not competitive and are looking for America to become a captive market for American corpos. Can't have people selling phones almost-as-good-as-iPhones for less than iPhones.

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#207

Post by klipklop »

throwaway4good wrote: post #180
ABeeSea wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the premise is incorrect?

I worked in tele for a couple of years; the reason Huawei and ZTE got ahead in 5G was that they invested heavily at time when Nokia and Ericsson were focused on cutting cost.

This is not true at all. If anything they had to tighten their belts to compete with the price dumping Huawei and ZTE were engaging in.

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#208

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

galdosdi wrote: post #65
huntertwo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t everybody have the right to not answer questions? Americans don’t have to do this either

Americans do have to answer questions posed by Congress or a court in many, many situations. It is commonplace for large public companies for example, to have to answer questions from regulators or Congress. For example, any time there's a merger, the federal government must approve it to ensure anti-monopoly laws are not violated by the new market arrangement. Or you may recall the famous cases of auto executives be…

I think his point is that you can choose to go to jail for contempt rather than answer anything. If your sit in jail long enough, the world moves on and your testimony is no longer relevant. That’s when a judge releases you (i think).

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#209

Post by dilyevsky »

throwaway4good wrote: post #201
ABeeSea wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only half the premise, the other half was > unfettered access to the teleco networks of the countries that they themselves say are their greatest enemies? Regardless of how they got their tech, that premise is the reason for blocking them.

As for the "unfettered access" stuff; a telco, or at least the one I worked at, doesn't really work like that. We buy products and engineering services from our suppliers but we run our own network, and if we did outsource operations, those engineers would sit on premise and the whole thing would be under our control.

> the whole thing would be under our control.

Pans to black. “The whole thing was not under their control”. Cue “aways sunny in Philadelphia” theme

Re: U.S. bans equipment from Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns

#210

Post by bogomipz »

saurik wrote: post #202
bogomipz wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on what exactly "integrated communications and sensing" is and why it's so important here. I tried to do some quick reading but I failed to find any good high level overview of what it is. Most of what I was able to find seemed like academic research papers around beam-forming.

The status from 3 years ago was already pretty scary. https://web.ece.ucsb.edu/~ymostofi/IdentificationThroughWall...

Wow, this is equally fascinating and frightening. Is it correct to say Cross-Modal-ID is an application of "integrated communications and sensing" technology then? Am I understanding relationship correctly?
Post reply on HN