111–120 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why do you think that? like sure, i suppose every nation dreams of being the top dog ruling the world, and China even has a realistic shot at it but i never got any 'we want to destroy the west' vibes from China
The best example of we want to destroy the west vibes is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atBDuJBuKpQ
Maybe this is when Apple finally decides to encrypt all iCloud storage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the correct explanation. And that makes sense as well. I think another insight might be that the Chinese gov doesn’t really like when large companies can influence their decisions. I’d imagine that if everyone in the gov has an iPhone it makes it harder to be tough on Tim Apple.
> it makes it harder to be tough on Tim Apple. Considering China's Biggest Export are Consumer Electronics and its adjacent industry, Apple has been the biggest help to that in the past 15 years. Not just on its products, but also the whole Supply Chain from Display to NAND. I warned about BOE and YMTC in 2016 on SemiWiki before both names enter into mainstream media. And it seems only Financial Times [1] ( or arguab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The p60 pro is released this year and available: https://www.newegg.com/p/23B-001M-007X6
Global version and carries no warranty, meaning imported. You can find all sorts of weird imported stuff in Amazon and NewEgg from third party sellers. Still not legal for US companies to distribute Huawei phones, though.
Obviously they are imported, that's the point. They are imported Chinese phones. Amazon and Newegg are US companies distributing imported Chinese Huawei phones.
There is a ban on Huawei telecom equipment, and a ban on selling tech to Huawei, but show me where phones are banned.
The question is, how many mutually disjoint digital domains will the planet eventually split into? Countries have their own everything (laws, regulations, money, taxes etc) given that this is how the world's political power is managed. Digital tech and information flow spread like if it is a universal something, but that is not how the worlds political power is managed. At most you might have coalitions of allies tha…
In that sense, an open and universal internet is an anomaly. It was a great thought experiment by hippie technophiles, and "connecting the world" is a commonly parroted platitude by social media executives, but humans are far from ready to interact with millions of strangers from their own country, let alone from around the world.
If anything, all this technology that was supposed to bring us together, has instead driven us further apart. The internet is our main source of information, yet it's been corrupted by advertising, corporations and governments to spread disinformation and propaganda on an unprecedented scale, and influence the masses towards their own agenda.
We're still in the early stages of the technological revolution, but it's clear that a universal communication medium cannot exist yet. We're not ready for it. China and Russia already have isolated alternatives, and it's only a matter of time before other countries or coalitions follow suit. In any case, we can safely assume that all of it will be heavily censored and controlled by each government. Cryptography will exist in some form, but there will be backdoors for any government to exploit as needed.
Is this too pessimistic? :) I'd really like to be wrong about all this, but I can't picture a scenario where billions of us happily sing kumbaya together around a virtual campfire.
uno reverse card play against US ban I see
Yes, except US is not trying to destroy China while China seems to be secretly dreaming of destroying the West and becoming a global authoritarian hegemon. All after the US did for them.
Frankly, China's reactions to the US "sanctions" have been extremely restrained and very far from proportional to what USA has done.
The claims of USA that their actions with the purpose of hurting leading Chinese companies like Huawei or SMIC are "sanctions", are pure BS. If they had really been sanctions, then USA would have presented to China some political demands that would have been conditions for avoiding sanctions, for instance they could have required the recognition of the fact that Taiwan is an independent country or a promise that they will not try to expand their sovereignty over the adjacent seas or better rights for minorities.
But USA did not tie any demands to the so-called "sanctions", so these are not sanctions. USA has also claimed that their actions, including the blackmailing of European and Taiwanese companies to stop selling their products to China have the purpose to hurt the Chinese military.
This is also complete BS. The impact on the military will be negligible. The only great impact has been on the US companies Qualcomm and Micron, whose competitors in smartphones and SSDs have been removed from the market exactly at the moments when it had become obvious that in the very near future the US products will no longer be competitive and will lose most of their market share.
Thus the champion of the "free market" could not find any other solution to stay in the top position, except by cheating.
The problem for USA is that this has been an action that has been possible to do only once, and it will be no longer available in the future. It has been wasted now providing gains only for some US companies, while many other US, European and Taiwanese companies have lost money, so they have been more preoccupied on how to circumvent the sanctions instead on how to support them.
If USA had adopted such policies against China at least 15 years earlier, they would have had a good chance to ensure a constant technological advantage for USA. If such policies would have been adopted some time later, in a future when China would still have had critical dependencies on US technology, in the case of a serious conflict they could have been blackmailed to accept whatever USA would have wanted.
Now, these policies have been adopted too late for preventing China to match USA in technology and too early to be able to force them to do anything, because by the time of any future conflict they will have had enough years to eliminate their external dependencies.
This just seems like a logical reaction to unknown supply chain attacks. The DoD has restrictions on acquisition of Chinese hardware, for example. Some HN posters believe that this is a tit-for-tat move regarding the Huawei sales ban, which is hardly comparable, as Huawei hardware cannot be legally distributed or sold by US companies.
> unknown supply chain attacks. Is that the case given that iPhones are manufactured in China? My tinfoil hat theory is that they find it harder to hack iPhones to monitor their government officials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unknown supply chain attacks. Is that the case given that iPhones are manufactured in China? My tinfoil hat theory is that they find it harder to hack iPhones to monitor their government officials.
> My tinfoil hat theory is that they find it harder to hack iPhones to monitor their government officials. It is a fact that certain US agencies required Blackberry or Android, rather than iOS on iPhone, for this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every security lab I’ve ever been around was picking lots of low hanging fruit from the fertile tree of that infotainment system.
Do you have any evidence for this?
But, if you don’t know anyone in the offensive security space and still want to get some general feelings, perhaps you can start by looking into things like “Tesla CAN bus security,” “Tesla infotainment security,” and “Tesla NFC fob security.”
Plus, here’s a heuristic for why they would have horrible security: they a are poorly built product which focuses more on flash than substance made by a company with an owner that is known to cut corners, and security is absolutely not one of the key selling points of this(or any other) car.