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

221–230 of 242 posts

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

#221

Post by colinsane »

greatjack613 wrote: post #139

This should not come as a surprise to anyone here. The fact that people on HN still defend china when they clearly got their success through espionage and cheating just shows how much influence XI has on american institutions and social media. I hope everyone just wakes up in time so we can stop this nightmare before we lose everything we hold dear.

i’d like to hear more about how Xi is influencing the HN perception of these things. it seems a leap to go from “American HNers disagree with many actions by their own government” to “they disagree with this primarily because of foreign influence”. i think the simpler explanation is that there’s a lot of idealists here who take more of a moral absolutism view of things than is historically practical for a state to do: “this anti-China policy Y is silly because US also does terrible things relating to Y”, not caring (at least publicly) which of the two parties is a worse offender to Y.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

viraptor wrote: post #214
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.

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by heavyset_go »

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…

Imposition of market liberalism, to me at least, feels like an extension of that perceived Western superiority, especially combined with the hubris that The End of History drew from.

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

#224

Post by mordae »

greatjack613 wrote: post #139

This should not come as a surprise to anyone here. The fact that people on HN still defend china when they clearly got their success through espionage and cheating just shows how much influence XI has on american institutions and social media. I hope everyone just wakes up in time so we can stop this nightmare before we lose everything we hold dear.

You should read up on US history. Brits were not very happy about US ignoring their patents. Selfish people just like to kick off the ladder once they've used it to climb up.

We should criticize China for human rights violations, not for copying useful ideas and trying to learn to build tech on their own.

IP should be abolished universaly.

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

#225

Post by throwawaaay129 »

ksenzee wrote: post #205
throwawaaay129 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's the Orwellian thought-suppression psy-ops stuff." I mean that's like a "bigger" issue. I think it's a completely fair to decide you should just not conduct business with companies under authoritarian regimes (see N.Korea Iran Myanmar etc.). If you wanna blacklist the whole country then okay.. but here it's some indefensible middle ground where you continue to do business with them, until it's inconvenient and s…

I don't see why the middle ground is indefensible. We'll buy your widgets, but not if they're sophisticated enough to be backdoored and cause a national security issue? That seems okay to me.

B/c there is no sense of justice about it. It's just the arbitrary fickleness of some decision maker and it can't be appealed.

The US government alleges they (Huawei ZTE etc.) colluding to put backdoors in infrastructure equipment. The companies say "no we don't" and the US government just says "well.. we think you're lieing!" - and that's the end of the story. It's all just amateurish and undermines the rule of law and sense of fairness when dealing with America and the American market.

If there was some formal process where countries are semi-sanctioned and all thing made in some super long list of authoritarian countries was not allowed to be used in some other long list of "critical infrastructure" .. well at least there would be a sense of impartiality.

The way things stand.. it looks like Huawei's 5G and infrastructure technology got too good, it threatened the pseudo-monopolies of some big American companies with deep government connections, so the US bureaucrats curb-stomped them as best they could .. and now they can't even sell their laptops/cellphones in the US? It's just completely nonsensical, arbitrary and vindictive.

There is also just very little logic to it, b/c even if all the allegations about their tentacles in networking equipment are true and were proven to be true, why should I be prohibited from buying some completely unrelated consumer good - like a Huawei laptop, but an Apple or Lenovo laptop (also made in China) is totally fine? It's like the US government is in some state of war with these firms and is out to destroy them (based on no public evidence or accountability) - and the threat on US infrastructure seems to have devolved to be a convenient pretext.

Maybe the intentions of the US authorizes are good and pure and they have a good reason for all of this. But they way they're going about it is vindictive, authoritarian and undermines the impartial fairness of the American system

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

#226

Post by ashwagary »

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…

The US banning higher end devices also possibly means they are harder for the US to surveil. This may make them more valuable to people that are not Chinese and wont ever spend time in China.

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

#227

Post by ashwagary »

chrischen wrote: post #134
rgbrenner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s xenophobia. The US helped China into the WTO. The dispute is really about the status of China. The wto allows developing countries to impose import restrictions and various other protections. China—number one by gdp ppp, or #72 by gdp ppp per capita- says they are still a developing country and don’t have to give other countries equal access to their market. The US disagrees. I know there are other…

The US isn’t a single consistent entity. US basically enabled modern day China by opening trade, but now that they are catching up it’s no longer advantageous to help them forward.

The US benefited from opening up to China. It returning to the dominant economy in the world was an inevitability with or without US support.

Being on good terms with them and dealing with inflation by using their labor force bought the US some time but US politicians just acted more irresponsibly (warmongering) instead of capitalizing on the temporary windfall.

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

#228

Post by charcircuit »

katbyte wrote: post #179
charcircuit wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, he is right. If you use that chip you have to get it certified because the traces on the PCB can cause EM interference. Changing the housing of the product can also chance the EM interference so you have to get it recertified before you can sell it. The FCC is a massive regulatory moat against hobbyist electronics. You have to make something expensive enough or with enough scale to make enough profit to be able…

i personally think its a good thing that goods sold commercially are not going to start basking my other electronics in random rf.

Yes, but I don't believe to achieve that with a less restrictive and expensive system. Right now if you upgrade your graphics card in your computer you can not sell your computer to someone else without paying $$$$ to get it certified. I think some rules about what kind of derivatives works you can make from already certified electronics would be beneficial.

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

#229

Post by chrischen »

rgbrenner wrote: post #161
chrischen wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is rather than deciding which economy is large enough to decide for itself how to tariff, you let everyone decide for themselves. And in fact this is how the world works by default, and even the US chooses selective tariffs… so what does it mean to selectively cry “fair trade” only when it benefits your local corporate interests? Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting… should China now start sub…

They agreed to wto rules when they joined. And your last sentence is wrong— Chinese are not free to buy us made goods if they think they are better. China places heavy tariffs and other protections on imports. Since you seem to be unaware.. that’s what you’re arguing for: the right of China to place heavy tariffs on foreign goods, while using wto rules to prevent other nations from doing the same to Chinese goods. Co…

Yes that is what I am arguing for… the right for sovereign nations to place tariffs. I mean, the US has tariffed Chinese goods as well now so it’s fair game. And if tariffs are so great why don’t countries do it all the time?

Despite tariffs iPhones still sell well and take a majority of profits in China, because it’s a superior product. Tariffs are just a form of subsidy and subsidies protect companies but make them less competitive. Apple wouldn’t exist if America was protectionist.

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

#230

Post by toss1 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #149
toss1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS a fraud and a counterfeit to illegally sell a device without a proper FCC license. They are either selling the device with a license ID for a different device (Counterfeit) or selling it without any license (Fraud). Either way, it certainly has not gone through the required tests for not producing unacceptable levels of interference, and so could at the very least create problems in your environment and other d…

If would only be "fraud and a counterfeit" if they were to affix an FCC label on the device with out having it approved by the FCC. However if they are simply selling a device that is not approved and registered with the FCC, they are violating FCC regulations but it is not "fraud and a counterfeit" >so could at the very least create problems in your environment and other devices. First that assumes facts not in evid…

>>If would only be "fraud and a counterfeit" if they were to affix an FCC label on the device with out having it approved by the FCC.

While I'm sure you meant "It" vs "If", it was a typo for me to write only "and" vs the intended "and/or".

I can also point out from having dealt with the FCC that it is a very common practice to do what you said and affix a label for a different approved device to a non-approved device.

As far as the FCC's value, it has been a while and may have changed, but IIRC it is up to the device manufacturer to get tests run in an approved RF lab and provide the results to the FCC (so it works/worked a lot like you are suggesting); AFAIK they do selected tests, not all tests.

And yes the FCC DOES provide significant value here. While no one cares about the "FCC Approved" label while buying, without the process there would be a huge amount of interference and most wireless stuff wouldn't work at all. There are thousands of ways to unintentionally fork-up a radio design and thousands more to fork-up a circuit design so it unintentionally emits and receives interference.

Only by being required to check and comply with emissions limits is the RF space even half-way usable — and we're talking about not only your wireless earbuds or car radio, but GPS and aircraft navigation. Even aircraft navigation systems are an issue today because of old-generation equipment and new 5G bandwidth usage creating interference, so they need to rework the standards and install upgraded devices.

Just because the average consumer doesn't know or care does not mean it's unimportant. The average consumer also doesn't know or care about the entire food safety regime, they just expect that they can eat what the get at the grocery store and not die. Similarly, because of the FCC regs, we can expect that we can bring home and turn on a new device and not have it make every other device on the street fail.

Post reply on HN