US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment

**Hugh Cow** · 25-02-2019, 07:45 AM

Saw the full interview with Ren and thought he was an impressive character. Said straight up his daughters non technical background would preclude her from running the company. I thought he answered the questions very directly and came across as quite genuine. In fairness all of these high tech companies can be subject to government interference, be it China USA or any other.
One would have to concede the potential for China to interfere is much greater. So far I have not seen any proof Huawei has done so. It can be a slippery slope if we start to ban companies on potential rather than actuality.

**OhOh** · 25-02-2019, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ian Levy, technical director of Britain’s National Cyber Security Center (NCSC)

A techies view point, useful.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Ciaran Martin, head of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)

A person who has a fuller information bucket to enable a clearer analysis, a political appointee.

Who to believe.

One presumes responsibility accrues to the higher ups.

**harrybarracuda** · 25-02-2019, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

A techies view point, useful.

A person who has a fuller information bucket to enable a clearer analysis, a political appointee.

Who to believe.

One presumes responsibility accrues to the higher ups.

One should really presume that the boss now understands the risks a bit better than when he opened his mouth the first time.

**harrybarracuda** · 25-02-2019, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Saw the full interview with Ren and thought he was an impressive character. Said straight up his daughters non technical background would preclude her from running the company. I thought he answered the questions very directly and came across as quite genuine. In fairness all of these high tech companies can be subject to government interference, be it China USA or any other.

Except China has laws that says such companies will work with the intelligence services.

Yes, LAWS.

And laws that say it can hack any company with 5+ computers and steal what it likes.

LAWS.

**OhOh** · 25-02-2019, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

One should really presume that the boss now understands the risks as bit better than when he opened his mouth the first time

One hopes whoever opens their mouth is well briefed, on all aspects, technical, commercial and diplomatic.

**harrybarracuda** · 25-02-2019, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

One hopes whoever opens their mouth is well briefed, on all aspects, technical, commercial and diplomatic.

Well they might have to put the decision off a bit longer because May wants to delay Brexit.

**foobar** · 25-02-2019, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Except China has laws that says such companies will work with the intelligence services.

Yes, LAWS.

And laws that say it can hack any company with 5+ computers and steal what it likes.

LAWS.

100% the same as the US, yes actual LAWS. Can hack anyone with 1+ computers.

This information has already been posted several times, you failed to read it, tried to dismiss it off hand...as per usual.

**harrybarracuda** · 25-02-2019, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by foobar

100% the same as the US, yes actual LAWS. Can hack anyone with 1+ computers.

This information has already been posted several times, you failed to read it, tried to dismiss it off hand...as per usual.

And you still don't understand DUE PROCESS you fucking simian.

**OhOh** · 25-02-2019, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

DUE PROCESS

You're dreaming again. It's all plea bargaining in the ameristan "courts".

**foobar** · 25-02-2019, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And you still don't understand DUE PROCESS you fucking simian.

You can try and make imaginary distinctions, but no one buys it except maybe cujo or one of the other tards.

**harrybarracuda** · 26-02-2019, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda (US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment)

And you still don't understand DUE PROCESS you fucking simian.

Originally Posted by foobar

You can try and make imaginary distinctions, but no one buys it except maybe cujo or one of the other tards.

Thanks for proving my point, dumbass.

**harrybarracuda** · 26-02-2019, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

You're dreaming again. It's all plea bargaining in the ameristan "courts".

It seems you don't have a clue what a plea bargain is either. All that whackjobbery has addled your marginally functional brain.

**OhOh** · 26-02-2019, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It seems you don't have a clue what a plea bargain

Generally considered to mean:

"The plea bargain (also plea agreement or plea deal) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor."

For those lacking a love of the Latin lingo:

"Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend" and it is also referred to as a plea of no contest."

Do you have a differing interpretation than this?

**harrybarracuda** · 26-02-2019, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Generally considered to mean:

"The plea bargain (also plea agreement or plea deal) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor."

For those lacking a love of the Latin lingo:

"Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend" and it is also referred to as a plea of no contest."

Do you have a differing interpretation than this?

I'm glad you googled it. Maybe one day you'll learn how to use it. Perhaps when the R Kelly trial concludes you can use it in context.

**OhOh** · 27-02-2019, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Except China has laws that says such companies will work with the intelligence services.

Yes, LAWS.

Huawei Chairman Mocks US "Security Threat" Claims With Jab At Snowden

"Huawei executives took advantage of this week's Mobile World Conference in Barcelona - one of the global telecom industry's biggest trade events - to mock US allegations that Chinese telecom giant represents a possible security threat for the US's western allies, when he correctly pointed out that US law requires the same type of security cooperation for which Huawei is allegedly complicit.

In remarks that touched a nerve for the US, Huawei Chairman Guo Ping offered what Bloomberg described as "his boldest defense yet" against allegations that Huawei is complicit in espionage during a presentation in Barcelona, where he also brought up the NSA domestic mass-surveillance programs exposed by former contractor Edward Snowden. Many of these programs - like the infamous PRISM program - involved the mandatory cooperation of the US's biggest tech and telecoms firms in the collection of digital communications. Guo pointed out that US federal law requires companies to hand over data to the government, even when that data is stored on foreign servers.

Guo's macabre sense of humor elicited a few laughs from his audience.

"Prism, prism on the wall, who is the most trustworthy of them all?" Ping asked, drawing laughter and scattered applause. "It is a very important question and if you don’t answer that, you can go and ask Edward Snowden."

In an editorial published by the FT on Wednesday, Guo hit upon what he said was the real source of the US's anxieties about Huawei: The Chinese telecoms giant threatens the US's "digital dominance" and has stoked fears of falling behind in the race for becoming the dominant power in 5G technology. Another consideration: As Snowden revealed, the US intelligence agencies are hell-bent on "collecting it all", and obedient domestic companies have been more than happy to oblige. But the growing dominance of Huawei, which operates in 170 countries and isn't beholden to Washington, makes that task much more difficult.
Here's more from the FT:

Clearly, the more Huawei gear is installed in the world’s telecommunications networks, the harder it becomes for the NSA to “collect it all”. Huawei, in other words, hampers US efforts to spy on whomever it wants. This is the first reason for the campaign against us. The second reason has to do with 5G. This latest generation of mobile technology will provide data connections for everything from smart factories to electric power grids.

Huawei has invested heavily in 5G research for the past 10 years, putting us roughly a year ahead of our competitors. That makes us attractive to countries that are preparing to upgrade to 5G in the next few months. If the US can keep Huawei out of the world’s 5G networks by portraying us as a security threat, it can retain its ability to spy on whomever it wants. America also directly benefits if it can quash a company that curtails its digital dominance. Hobbling a leader in 5G technology would erode the economic and social benefits that would otherwise accrue to the countries that roll it out early. Meanwhile, a range of US laws, including most recently the Cloud Act, empowers the US government to compel telecom companies to assist America’s programme of global surveillance, as long as the order is framed as an investigation involving counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism.

And to Washington's chagrin, other telecoms executives appeared to defend Huawei in their remarks, insisting that global carriers needed "a degree of choice" when selecting suppliers.

Vodafone Chief Executive Officer Nick Read, speaking on stage Monday, said carriers need “a degree of choice” when buying equipment. In an interview, Orange SA’s Chief Technology and Innovation Officer and Deputy CEO Mari-Noelle Jego-Laveissiere said that any ban on the Chinese company’s equipment would be “damaging” for the region.

It isn’t clear how much of an impact the U.S. delegation is having. Vodafone’s Read said Monday he had no meeting planned with U.S. officials on Huawei and would rather talk to national regulators if needed. Deutsche Telekom Board Member Claudia Nemat said she hadn’t been approached by the U.S. for meetings.

Rebutting Guo's claims, one State Department official quoted by Bloomberg insisted that, even if international telecoms firms don't trust the US, there are plenty of options aside from Huawei that don't involve the same security risks.

But, it's worth pointing out, they also don't offer the same cutting-edge 5G technology or low price."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-27/huawei-chairman-mocks-us-security-threat-claims-jab-snowden

Whose opinion carries the most weight? Vodaphone, Orange SA, Deutche Telekom, executives or one, unnamed, leaderless, ameristani, government, official?

**SKkin** · 27-02-2019, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

"Prism, prism on the wall, who is the most trustworthy of them all?" Ping asked, drawing laughter and scattered applause.

Nailed it...

Originally Posted by OhOh

Many of these programs - like the infamous PRISM program - involved the mandatory cooperation of the US's biggest tech and telecoms firms in the collection of digital communications. Guo pointed out that US federal law requires companies to hand over data to the government, even when that data is stored on foreign servers.

Posted similar info early on in this thread or maybe another...can't remember. From other sources. But it was ignored or shouted down by some.

**foobar** · 28-02-2019, 01:32 AM

^
^^
The Chinese must watch our media from afar and sadly shake their heads at the gullible westerners who believe the US propaganda.

No doubt Haw Haw will be along shortly with the weather.

**harrybarracuda** · 28-02-2019, 02:51 AM

Guo pointed out that US federal law requires companies to hand over data to the government, even when that data is stored on foreign servers.

Silly old chinky, needs to get a decent American lawyer. A review of United States vs Microsoft Corp and the subsequent CLOUD Act of 2018 would help.

Read and learn, gentlemen, read and learn.

"Principally, it asserts that U.S. data and communication companies must provide stored data for U.S. citizens on any server they own and operate when requested by warrant, but provides mechanisms for the companies or the courts to reject or challenge these if they believe the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country the data is stored in. It also provides an alternative and expedited route to MLATs through "executive agreements"; the executive branch is given the ability to enter into bi-lateral agreements with foreign countries to provide requested data related to its citizens in a streamlined manner, as long as the Attorney General, with concurrence of the Secretary of State, agree that the foreign country has sufficient protections in place to restrict access to data related to United States citizens."

So: No US law does not require companies to hand over data stored on foreign servers UNLESS they have a warrant AND the government of said foreign country agrees to it, and even then if it violates privacy laws of said foreign government, it's a no-no.

Which is why Microsoft never had to provide emails stored in its Irish data centre.

Fucking zerohedge whackjob shite again, you swallow this rubbish without ever checking the facts, don't you.

**harrybarracuda** · 28-02-2019, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by foobar

^
^^
The Chinese must watch our media from afar and sadly shake their heads at the gullible westerners who believe the US propaganda.

No doubt Haw Haw will be along shortly with the weather.

Or alternatively, perhaps Harry will be along soon to piss all over your silly shite.

**OhOh** · 28-02-2019, 09:35 AM

^Possibly factual evidence previously identified, utilised and reported/leaked makes your argument somewhat weak and useless. But carry on regarding ameristan and it's vassals as law abiding regimes.

And no I will not go around the same argument we have had over the past days, months and years.

**harrybarracuda** · 28-02-2019, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

^Possibly factual evidence

Yeah, you can't debunk actual facts with "possible facts".

Who are you, KellyAnne Conway?

**OhOh** · 28-02-2019, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

KellyAnne Conway?

Does not compute.

**harrybarracuda** · 28-02-2019, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Does not compute.

Kellyanne calls her bullshit "alternative facts".

**OhOh** · 28-02-2019, 06:41 PM

I really like the 'alternative facts'.

**foobar** · 28-02-2019, 08:55 PM

Trump's blowjob machine ...masquerading as a wh staffer.

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-js122032203-afp-conway-couch_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bq3480unuu8ufsxdsay1n7mbxtkjddwm94olhdp7cldv0-jpg

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-js122032203-afp-conway-couch_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bq3480unuu8ufsxdsay1n7mbxtkjddwm94olhdp7cldv0-jpg

Thread: US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions