231–240 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look up Nortel.
The bloated tech gaint that refused to acknowledge the reality of the dotcom crash and then was brought down by an accounting scandal? That Nortel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Chinese government doesn't play fair No government or organisation does, and I wouldn’t fault any state for doing it’s best to edge it’s bets.
The expression is "hedge its bets" and that doesn't make sense in this context.
So "stack the odds in its favour” then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well he is right in that Huawei source code has been reviwed by Uk gov, and they found nothing. The accusations do appear to be based on nothing at this time. I would like tonsee rigorous benchmarks for vode quality and trustworthyness, not arbitrary and whinsical political decision-making
Just because UK found nothing doesn't mean others also found nothing. > "We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world," Robert O'Brien, national security adviser, reportedly said. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoo... https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-co...
The links you provide have unspecified official sharing his views of intelligence of unspesified quality. There appears to be no code review and no spesific information about what information Huawei has access to, which equipment is affected, etc.
I am not sure we can treat this level of intelligence with complete trust, it could be a PR excersise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In the same way that the US and EU going to war or even just breaking off diplomatic ties is extremely unlikely to happen due to how much they have integrated with each other on the back of mutual benefit.
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.
Keep in mind, a fair amount of overlap between US military and the US intelligence community. These are the people that build things like Cheyenne Mountain and Raven Rock and ARPAnet and fund lots and lots of computer security research. They are paranoid patriots. Some might be patriotic paranoids, but the general trend is "both". They don't want leaky machines inside their borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huawei singlehandedly destroyed Canada's Nortel Networks through espionage and sabotage. The CIA did an analysis and discovered that Huawei was dumping wireless equipment to small wireless providers in areas around US military basis at a loss. At the very least, the ability to disrupt communication of those military bases were easily achievable.
My father worked for what was basically a bootstrapped startup at the bleeding edge of computing in the late 80's. Eventually his company, through a series of exchanges was part of Nortel Networks. He'll tell you a different story. When you mention the "espionage / sabotage" he doesn't laugh or shake his head, it actually just outright infuriates him. Such a naive narrative only angers him because it seems to absolve…
Huawei's espionage was well documented at Nortel, it's not within any level of dispute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I see stories like this I can't help but feel a twisted sense of respect for China, because they know how to read the rulebooks and take advantage of it all for everything we're worth. Defeating the biggest military and geopolitical superpower known to mankind is trivial if you understand you can just ignore all that and instead buy it all up, and it becomes even more trivial if your enemy straight up give…
[flagged]
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
While I have no doubt than basically anything from China is probably backdoored (and to the fault of western countries outsourcing manufacturing for cheap labour), what exactly has Huawei done? How do we know that the Cisco equipment also isn't backdoored and if I send a few malformed TCP packets it opens up its control plane on the receiving port? Compared to the last few decades, it seems like a strong hand banning…
> While I have no doubt than basically anything from China is probably backdoored (and to the fault of western countries outsourcing manufacturing for cheap labour), what exactly has Huawei done? Some others have pointed out some Huawei incidents, but that’s not the big problem. The big problem is, if you build your entire telecom infrastructure on Huawei gear, and then you go to war, it will then be weaponized. In t…
Thankfully the truly advanced stuff exists in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the EU. But for cheap mass manufacturing, all of these parts end up in China.
The west really needs to suck it up and have electronics designed and manufactured in the west. There are some good signs with the CHIPs act (if only the American companies were as patriotic instead of optimising for share price) and the EU are also making moves to be self sufficient for silicon. However, the entire electronics chain really needs local alternatives. It's crazy that I can get a prototype PCB manufactured and delivered from China faster and cheaper than anywhere local.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While I have no doubt than basically anything from China is probably backdoored (and to the fault of western countries outsourcing manufacturing for cheap labour), what exactly has Huawei done? Some others have pointed out some Huawei incidents, but that’s not the big problem. The big problem is, if you build your entire telecom infrastructure on Huawei gear, and then you go to war, it will then be weaponized. In t…
I think this would also cover Cisco though, perhaps not so broadly. Our entire electronics industry is critically dependent on China for manufacturing. Thankfully the truly advanced stuff exists in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the EU. But for cheap mass manufacturing, all of these parts end up in China. The west really needs to suck it up and have electronics designed and manufactured in the west. There are some g…