141–150 of 151 posts
If the technology is great, every country will use it without questioning its source, but Chinese tech has never been so innovative, always copying and pasting with a bit of modifications. If you are forcing a country to use your technology, then there's something wrong.
So basically, the big companies own the government in their county.
Buying 5G technology from a benign country like Finland or Sweden seems like a good strategy. Both these countries have no aspiration for world domination and have track records of honest business dealings. I don't think either Ericson or Nokia has ever been accused or guilty of spying or stealing technology.
The question is to whom you would prefer to give this strategic advantage.
Now it looks really bad at us that we are offended from an Asian player after selling our tech to them for many years (well they didn’t had other choices either)
Obviously some 5G components aren’t critical. In that case maybe we must be more open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They haven't been blocked in China, they don't operate in China because they don't want to support China's censorship and authoritarian population control.
This is just false. Both Google and Facebook have been reported as seeking Chinese government authority to get re-enter the Chinese market this year, and neither Facebook, Google, or a large chunk of the rest of the Western internet is accessible in the mainland due to the Great Firewall.
The fact that Google has offices in China, offers services in China and runs conferences in China should show that they aren't blocked as a company. Dragonfly wasn't shut down by China, but by Google after they faced internal push back by employees against supporting Chinese censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Nokia has ever been accused or guilty of spying Which Nokia timeline are you talking about? The current Nokia HMD which outsources to China and was found to have Chinese botnet in them ?
You seem to misremember what that scandal was about, or maybe you read a particularly hysterical article that misrepresented the situation. Nokia had accidentally enabled an option intended for phones sold in China with a China Telecom contract. To verify that they were eligible for use with the contract, the phones would connect to China Telecom servers on first use. For the phones that had that option incorrectly e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you? A better decision rationale would be; which of the two is more likely to use their spy-data against you? And the answer to that is without doubt; your own local spy agency, not the one operating in another country.
In the long term, I'd not want my country's national security compromised by a morally bankrupt govt not subject to democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to misremember what that scandal was about, or maybe you read a particularly hysterical article that misrepresented the situation. Nokia had accidentally enabled an option intended for phones sold in China with a China Telecom contract. To verify that they were eligible for use with the contract, the phones would connect to China Telecom servers on first use. For the phones that had that option incorrectly e…
Always ignore intention. Either a device sent data to china (etc) or it didn't. Otherwise you're concerning yourself more with PR than the technical aspect. I don't care why the process allowed exfiltration of data.
In this case, Nokia likely won't reintroduce an obfuscated version of the leak to evade detection, because it wasn't intentional. On the other hand, it's certainly possible they'll configure a phone for the wrong carrier again, since the configuration process apparently involves passing a bunch of carrier-specific feature flags at build time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has started wars to protect foreign investment. The history of Latin America comes to mind. Some examples would be Allende, the bay of pigs invasion and Nicaraguan Contras. The fact that the US hasn't retaliated much in the tech industry probably just demonstrates that the industry wasn't firmly enough in bed with the government when China began blocking access to google and facebook.
Referencing three American incidents from decades ago (which, although I consider Chile and Nicaragua to be among America's darkest FP moments, were all officially -- and mostly corroborated by the historical record -- undertook in the name of national security rather than commercial interests) hardly indicates this sort of tit-for-tat commercial relations between nations is the global norm.
A more modern example of this sort of behavior might be the original US sanctions on Venezuela in the 2000s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the long term, I'd not want my country's national security compromised by a morally bankrupt govt not subject to democracy.
Fundamentally much of what you think in this way is the direct product of propaganda from your own state. It would behoove you to investigate your own preconceptions and realise where you first got them.
I can see the facts of the Chinese government's authoritarianism, their persecution of their minority populations, and their international behavior just fine. In fact, they're so economically influential, that I find criticism of them is muted, and tolerance of their crap is high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fundamentally much of what you think in this way is the direct product of propaganda from your own state. It would behoove you to investigate your own preconceptions and realise where you first got them.
It would behoove you to not guess at how I arrived at my beliefs and where I live and then claim I've got preconceptions. I can see the facts of the Chinese government's authoritarianism, their persecution of their minority populations, and their international behavior just fine. In fact, they're so economically influential, that I find criticism of them is muted, and tolerance of their crap is high.