81–90 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same applies for other countries, nobody seems to care there. With companies like Cisco you don't even need that, seeing that they have a backdoor released every other week.
That just wrong. I know plenty people, that work on small-scale IT-infrastructure projects for municipal- and city-level administration. Cisco has become a liability as far as network equipment is considered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow such a strong voice for a foreign (to you) company, or is it - shifty eye look Your position is weird, you need evidence that the Chinese are spying on you ? And you don’t think they do ? Ha too funny You want proof that the Chinese communist party will never order them to insert a back door. ROTFL You really are preparing your social credit score when the over lords arrive
GP is perfectly rational, without donning the "USA always right number one" goggles you seem to have had permanently attached. Why would any private individual in USA be more concerned about Chinese surveillance than about the surveillance of NSAFBIDEADOJ, who after all can lock any of us up and throw away the key?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence is required to support the statement “a Chinese company will do whatever it’s told to do by the communist party irrespective of the law” The people that keep trying to defend that, have special Place with the people defending tobacco companies.
Actual evidence of backdoors would be a start. There is a long list of state security enforced backdoors in american products. The list for Huawei is short. The US typically assumes the tactics itself uses must be used by anybody else. If you want us to choose between the Chinese and the Five Eyes spying on us, providing actual evidence for Chinese spying would be worth a lot for the side that has at least traces of…
You are trying to change other people’s mind. You are pretending to ignore IP theft, fairness if courts, future party ordered back doors While hand waving some concerns
Ps your social credit score just dropped
> “The actual and intended effect of these prohibitions is to bar Huawei from significant segments of the U.S. market for telecommunications equipment and services, thereby inflicting immediate and ongoing economic, competitive, and reputational harms on Huawei,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the suit. This is incredulously ironic coming from a Chinese company. China, who sets up just about every barrier imaginable…
You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. In most areas, whatever restrictions/laws on foreign businesses, are also put on Chinese companies (private). Most foreign companies lost Chinese market due to fierce competition from local counterparts, not any imaginable barrier. Back in 2000s, Chinese government even gave green light when Huawei tried to sell [ref] itself to Motorola, but only been turne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are outside the Five Eyes, you are left with the choice between US products (with a documented history of spying also on democratic nations) and Chinese products, which potentially in the future could also be host for government backdoors. This means the choice is only about who gets your trade secrets, with a bit more favour for huawei because they didn’t do it yet. It is so easy from an US perspective to say…
That is a very good point, except the US will not steal you IP and give it to Microsoft or some wind energy company. 2nd you can always take the US government to court, you can always take a US company to court and you will get a hearing without corruption without government directives
The second point is irrelevant if you're not American. Also, can you name a company that endured severe, tangible repercussions for their spying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find Huawei's position quite rich given they built their product stack from stealing Nortel IP in the 2000s.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-na... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re... https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-f... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...
> “The actual and intended effect of these prohibitions is to bar Huawei from significant segments of the U.S. market for telecommunications equipment and services, thereby inflicting immediate and ongoing economic, competitive, and reputational harms on Huawei,” the company’s lawyers wrote in the suit. This is incredulously ironic coming from a Chinese company. China, who sets up just about every barrier imaginable…
I also find Huawei's position quite rich given they built their product stack from stealing Nortel IP in the 2000s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/us-complains-other-na... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp... https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re... https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-f... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...
This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic.
> This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic.
So, we are supposed to accept the following:
- criticizing China, a relatively poor country, for stealing IP is OK. The world must confront China on these practices
- the US has the high ground, since it is not stealing IP (now)
Now I point out that the US has reached its current position as tech leader by doing roughly the same, and basically you tell me
- we are not talking about the US
- what the US did decades (centuries?) ago is not the topic of discussion, and it is not relevant to the discussion
How is my evidence not relevant to the discussion?
Now let me try to clarify what I am saying:
The technology lead that US has has been achieved largely by doing what the US is trying to prevent other countries from doing now. This technology lead has a huge impact on the world (the American tax), and the world should refuse to pay it. The world should follow exactly the same approach that the US followed in the past: disregard the rules, and concentrate on their own interests.
Because the system is rigged.
Drawing rules once you have achieved a dominant position, and trying to enforce them in order for others to remain behind and continue paying the tax to the tech leader is not in the interest of the world.
Once we have a balanced situation, you can think about putting rules for everybody to follow. "Everybody" means that there must be an independent organization, not politicized, in charged of enforcing the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just wrong. I know plenty people, that work on small-scale IT-infrastructure projects for municipal- and city-level administration. Cisco has become a liability as far as network equipment is considered.
You are pretending to confuse state level spying and ip theft with incompetence
With Cisco it's systematic. I don't know if all their shit can be attributed to incompetence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nortel once had a CEO that was a former US Navy Admiral. Was Nortel a corporate arm of the US military? Edit: I flagged your comment because it's fake news and because you downvote anyone who do not agree.
We've already asked you to please stop breaking the guidelines and it's not happening so we've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I have just calmly stated a fact and called out a rather baseless allegation.
If you condone this nefarious anti-Chinese climate and fake news, please just say so and I'll leave. It looks more and more that I am being harassed.