Google suspends some business with Huawei • Hacker News Board

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#501

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #391

windexh8er wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes indeed [0]. [0] https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/10000/10008/fe...

Lawful Intercept is not a backdoor: > The surveillance is performed through the use of wiretaps on traditional telecommunications and Internet services in voice, data, and multiservice networks. The LEA delivers a request for a wiretap to the target's service provider, who is responsible for intercepting data communication to and from the individual. The service provider uses the target's IP address or session to det…

Meh, if there is a backdoor it will be used, a warranty is a nicety and not required when the government steps in, including the US government. They break the law all the time, as was indicated by PRISM and numerous other illegal surveillance processes. All governments do it, it's just that China is turning it into an art form and flagrantly doing it and letting us all know they are building up a database on their own people to decide whether they are good people or not. Blocking Huawei is strictly to protect the USA's military interests, it's not about privacy. Cisco and Qualcomm may build in back doors but they are the USA sanctioned backdoors. That why Big H is getting the boot during 5G rollout

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#502

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

windexh8er wrote: post #491

pvg wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.

But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi.…

It wasn't legal because it completely violates the 4th amendment in the mind of any reasonable person. The government said that was okay, but really it wasn't okay, and we all know that it was unConstitutional under even the most liberal interpretation of the 4th amendment.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#503

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #258

Despegar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last thing China wants during a trade war is to have the 3 million people in Apple's supply chain unemployed and angry. This particular leverage is also why iMessage isn't blocked in China.

> The last thing China wants during a trade war is to have the 3 million people in Apple's supply chain unemployed and angry. As an autocracy, China could easily compensate workers for any loss of work. But another obvious answer is that if Apple were banned in China, Huawei and Xiaomi would pick up the slack. If China really wanted to, they could shut down all iPhone production for the immediate future.

If China shut down apple then you would see company/capital flight from China like you've never before seen in history. The communist party is powerful but I doubt if they could handle a 20% spike in unemployment of some of the best jobs in the country.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#504

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #412

roca wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huawei is effectively one arm of the Chinese government, and the Chinese state hackers are another arm of that same government.

Is Cisco that much less aligned with US government interest? I have the feeling it's just down to which government you want to trust.

Not true.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#505

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:47 AM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #450

roca wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was true that American phone companies are infiltrated by American intelligence services, you have to ask yourself which government you trust more. As a New Zealander, I think there are very good reasons to trust the US government a lot more. Heck, if you look at where Chinese officials try to stash their money and their families, it's clear they trust Western countries a lot more too.

> As a New Zealander, I think there are very good reasons to trust the US government a lot more. As an EU citizen, idk, China seems more locally focused, the U.S reaches everywhere. Speaking of NZ, the whole Kim Dotcom situation makes it look like a U.S.vassal state, honestly.

Hardly, look at what the Chinese are doing in Africa and the "Silk Road" initiative and how they load down countries with borrowing so they can come in and clean up 10 years later.

Re: Google suspends some business with Huawei

#506

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

windexh8er wrote: post #500

tptacek wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world…

So... 702 and PRISM aren't still being litigated? It's fun to watch you twist reality with this type of non-informational response. I get with the above you'd like people to assume that, instead, you've been "read in" on the subject matter. But not all of what you've outlined here is the _whole truth_.

These are words, I acknowledge that they are, but they're assembled in an order that make it hard for me to understand what they mean.

As I said above: it's not hard to come up with cases where NSA is doing things that appear to contravene US law, but you managed to cite the one instance where all they're managing is paperwork.