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

FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 242 posts

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#211

Post by ip26 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #147
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather live in a society where businesses follow the law - and if the laws don't make sense - we change them.

So you reject the idea of civil disobedience, and in reality reject the idea of case law and the entire legal system as most laws are written and challenged based on violations of the law. Laws that everyone follows, 100% of the time NEVER get changed. For example Marijuana is only becoming legalized because of MASSIVE violations of the law and the public rejecting the idea that society should be punishing people for…

Civil disobedience is not about ignoring the law because it’s inconvenient and hoping you get away with it. It’s about breaking the law publicly and accepting the punishment to show the injustice of the law.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#212

Post by dirtyid »

NLPlatypus wrote: post #169
dirtyid wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they believe in free trade at all More than US seeing how PRC has significantly less disputes (normalized for acession time), both as initiator and target per WTO stats and generally abides by WTO disputes ruled against her favour. Even PRC's accession protocol was made extra onerous via US objections who still got outplayed - it isn't/wasn't PRC paying lip service while blocking WTO dispute resolution system. PRC…

You’re talking about the China who recently put trade sanctions on Korea for installing missile defenses (who has a now-nuclear neighbor) and Australia for dare mentioning that COVID originated in China? >If Beijing keeps breaking free-trade rules to make its foreign-policy points against rival nations, it will hurt domestic markets and lose international stature https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2083166…

Yes and?

You eating biased media diet doesn't invalid the statistical reality that PRC, relative to her signifcant trade volume and relationships is objectively one of the better adherents at WTO relative to countries that whine about PRC unfairness. From TWO DSS database:

- PRC 65 disputes, 21 as complainant, 44 as respondant

- USA 279 disputes, 124 as complainant, 155 as respondant

- SKR 39 disputes, 21 as complainant, 18 as respondant

- JP 42 disputes, 26 as complainant, 16 as respondant

- AU 25 disputes, 9 as complainant, 16 as respondent

- EU 190 disputes, 104 as complainant, 86 as respondent

Another apt comparison: India 56 disputes, 24 as complainant, 32 as defendant, while 1/5th smaller than PRC.

Normalize for trade volume and accession time (PRC has been WTO member for 21/27 years, with again, more onerous accession requirement than typical) PRC is better than all USA, SKR, AU. In fact substantially better than other major powers. And as US has demonstrated, historically, it's completely normal to jetison trade rules for national security / foreign policy.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#213

Post by nnx »

skohan wrote: post #193
throwawaaay129 wrote: post #182

This whole things looks more and more embarrassing. From the outside it just looks like the US is struggling to compete and so they create extrajudicial barriers based on "secret evidence" to block competitors. The hypocrisy is that this is the exact anti-competitive behavior the US has been criticizing China for years. It's possible these companies are doing nefarious things. In which case create a country-agnostic…

It's not just the US which has adopted this approach. Iirc Germany for example doesn't allow Chinese tech for telecom infrastructure over concerns about security.

IIRC this was at the express demand of the US... similar situation in UK as well.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#214

Post by viraptor »

didyouknow789 wrote: post #148

[dead]

This is FUD, not actionable information. Device management services are not backdoors. Forwarding traffic you don't understand and can't verify the fix is just cargo culting random advice. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to this issue, but this comment is extremely low quality.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#215

Post by themagician »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #195

I wonder if this covers Baofeng radios. (I'm not sure who their parent company is so hard to tie them to the Covered List) Trade barriers cloaked in National Security cloth are nothing new, they were common in the old Soviet Union (a lot of US made computers were forbidden from entering, and of course the US refused to sell more advanced computers based on National Security concerns), they have been active on and off…

Just going to get worse.

Banning China from having EUV today will just force them to double down. They’ll eventually get it and then surpass it. It should be obvious at this point that China will dominate the hardware space in the next 10-20 years.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#216

Post by chihuahua »

heavyset_go wrote: post #108
flumpcakes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nortel networks haven't been around for nearly a decade. I've seen lots of news about 5G/Huaewi and 'core networks' only in the recent years in western countries (UK/US mainly). However, I haven't seen anything published that really reflects new risks/major backdoored products. I wouldn't 100% trust anything built in China, but there must be some reason people are only taking action now? Unless it's just "better late…

People are taking action now because the West spent decades underestimating China, probably for xenophobic reasons. I'm willing to bet a lot of people assumed they weren't as capable as westerners and now it can't be denied. IMO, it was a classic mistake of underestimating a potential rival while stroking our own egos about how smart, capable and powerful we are in comparison. Reality finally trumped hubris.

It reminds me of how the U.S. and Britain underestimated Japan just before WW2. They thought Japan was a bunch of funny little men, not really competent at fighting. This led to a very rude awakening in Dec 1941 and throughout much of 1942 when the Japanese Navy proved to be extremely competent and, together with the Army, seized a lot of territory across the Pacific (Singapore, Philippines, etc)

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#217

Post by _tik_ »

dotnet00 wrote: post #202
heavyset_go wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are taking action now because the West spent decades underestimating China, probably for xenophobic reasons. I'm willing to bet a lot of people assumed they weren't as capable as westerners and now it can't be denied. IMO, it was a classic mistake of underestimating a potential rival while stroking our own egos about how smart, capable and powerful we are in comparison. Reality finally trumped hubris.

It wasn't xenophobia, the West has been gradually waking up to the realization that their idea of converting countries into more ideal partners by building strong trade is not really working as the countries they're trying to influence will just take the benefits and not reciprocate. It has become especially clear over the past few years, first with COVID highlighting the fragility of supply chains dependent on such…

The traded deals are very far from the charity of the west.

The traded deals by the west were based on the benefit to the western countries. It is not a charity. The low inflation, the record profit of the western companies and bonuses are from cheap labour and resources from more desperate countries.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#218

Post by rjbwork »

themagician wrote: post #215
ChuckMcM wrote: post #195

I wonder if this covers Baofeng radios. (I'm not sure who their parent company is so hard to tie them to the Covered List) Trade barriers cloaked in National Security cloth are nothing new, they were common in the old Soviet Union (a lot of US made computers were forbidden from entering, and of course the US refused to sell more advanced computers based on National Security concerns), they have been active on and off…

Just going to get worse. Banning China from having EUV today will just force them to double down. They’ll eventually get it and then surpass it. It should be obvious at this point that China will dominate the hardware space in the next 10-20 years.

Maybe. AFAIU, they've been pretty incapable of getting anywhere near high-end fabs working, and have relied a lot on western consultants to actually get what they do have up and running.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they are going to dominate cutting edge computer hardware at all.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#219

Post by jolux »

rjbwork wrote: post #218
themagician wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just going to get worse. Banning China from having EUV today will just force them to double down. They’ll eventually get it and then surpass it. It should be obvious at this point that China will dominate the hardware space in the next 10-20 years.

Maybe. AFAIU, they've been pretty incapable of getting anywhere near high-end fabs working, and have relied a lot on western consultants to actually get what they do have up and running. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they are going to dominate cutting edge computer hardware at all.

I would bet they'll figure it out eventually, but probably not as soon as they would have otherwise.

Re: FCC Bans Authorizations for Devices That Pose National Security Threat

#220

Post by zerocrates »

JamesianP wrote: post #167
zerocrates wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment isn't saying anti-China actions and suspicions by the government are xenophobic. It's instead saying more or less the opposite: that the delay in these kinds of actions is possibly down to policymakers seeing China as lesser and not worth concern.

That also sounds like the opposite of xenophobia. And the US befriended China for important strategic reasons starting with Nixon. If they underestimated anything it was the ability of an authoritarian regime to retain power through such a period of economic growth. Middle classes tend to want western products and media. But the economic growth itself was a deliberate goal of US policy.

I was going to add some about at least several decades of US/Western approach being from a playbook of having the market kind of lead to liberalization on its own, and the Chinese government's ability to reap the rewards while maintaining control, but I didn't want to bloat the comment.

As for xenophobia being the opposite, I imagine the comment being referenced (now several levels above) was using -phobia in the common modern sense of including bias or prejudice and not literally fear.

Post reply on HN