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

^ Not obsessed....just making the occasional comment. And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.

Those of you who whinge the most are the biggest disputers of the forum. You are one of the biggest if not the biggest stalkers on TD you creep.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.

It doesn't occur to you that making repeated off-topic posts attacking someone in a thread they hadn't even posted in is 'what's happening to this forum' and that it's not about me being protected and it's more just that you keep pulling this whiny, pathetic, shite.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.

You have stated that you are not going to contribute in TD anymore so just piss off. Leave!

Originally Posted by lom

You have stated that you are not going to contribute in TD anymore so just piss off. Leave!

The obsessive little tosser's definitely on the verge of a flounce, I can feel it.

Originally Posted by lom

Not since a few straggly haired Scandinavians decided to go and harass some English monks has there been this much danger of a Viking takeover. "

Yea, but Scandis tried to breed some 'good' into them the last time and look how that turned out

Originally Posted by lom

Fortunately it is the mobile service providers and not the UK government who decide which mfgr (apart from Huawei) they contract to to build their 5G nets.

It doesn't work quite like that. Have you never heard the phrase "Critical National Infrastructure"?

"...Paragraph 70 of Schedule 17 of the Communications Act 2003
amended Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act and this remains one of
the few sections of the former Act still in force. Section 94 allows the
Secretary of State to give directions to providers of public electronic
communications networks, or Ofcom, in the interests of national security, or of
relations with a foreign country."

Communications Act 2003

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It doesn't work quite like that. Have you never heard the phrase "Critical National Infrastructure"?

The operators in Britain are already using a mix of Huawei, Ericson, and Nokia so I don't think that the latter two suddenly would be rejected.
Your link says "without citing sources" which means that it is likely to be bollox alternatively the British government is fishing for a new trading partner.
The only problem is that neither NEC nor Fujitsu has the technology or the capacity needed, the only other mfgr I can see as a possible partner is Chinese ZTE.

Originally Posted by lom

The operators in Britain are already using a mix of Huawei, Ericson, and Nokia so I don't think that the latter two suddenly would be rejected.

No-one said anything about rejecting them - except Huawei.

British digital minister Oliver Dowden last week said Britain was working with its allies to foster stronger rivals to Huawei, naming firms from Finland, Sweden, South Korea and Japan.

Your link says "without citing sources" which means that it is likely to be bollox alternatively the British government is fishing for a new trading partner. The only problem is that neither NEC nor Fujitsu has the technology or the capacity needed, the only other mfgr I can see as a possible partner is Chinese ZTE.

ZTE FFS that's worse than Huawei.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

naming firms from Finland, Sweden, South Korea and Japan.

And all 4 will deliver the requested 'backdoors' to whom it may concern, if demanded.

I think so

Originally Posted by OhOh

One hopes the "rivals" will be subjected to the same technological inspections/clearances and government minister's statements.

You're forgetting that none of them come from countries whose reputation is tarnished by years of technology theft, nor whose laws force them to work at the behest of government spooks like the chinkies do.

Well you're not forgetting, you just lie about it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Well you're not forgetting, you just lie about it.

Lying is a usual state of mind when one is defending the indefensible. Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea must furnish their respective government with confidential data. China does.
Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea have a whole minority of over one million imprisoned for religious and social re-education - and no, OhOh and K-dyke, as horrific the US system of incarceration is, the judiciary is still generally separate of the government. In China it is not. Not one tiny bit, so spare us the 'whataboutism'

Finland, Sweden, Japan and Korea are considered allies with similarly functioning systems of democratic values.

So yes, stop lying and bing sweeping apologists for regimes and systems you wouldn't live under yet are happy and willing to defend . . . as long as their horrific and medieval machinations don't affect you

Originally Posted by panama hat

So yes, stop lying and bing sweeping apologists for regimes and systems you wouldn't live under yet are happy and willing to defend . . . as long as their horrific and medieval machinations don't affect you

This. Our resident Commies are an absolute disgrace.

Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea must furnish their respective government with confidential data. China does.

Any Link, or reference to this? Huawei is not a State owned corporation, rather privately owned.
But either way, the US does have these laws in place.

Originally Posted by sabang

Huawei is not a State owned corporation, rather privately owned

...I don't think there's a business entity in China that would refuse the government access to its data...nothing to do with legal niceties, everything to do with brute force...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...I don't think there's a business entity in China that would refuse the government access to its data...nothing to do with legal niceties, everything to do with brute force...

Everything to do with "legal niceties":

Article 7 of the National Intelligence Law (国家情报法) declares:

Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of [emphasis added]. The state shall protect individuals and organisations that support, cooperate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work.

Huawei and the ambiguity of China’s intelligence and counter-espionage laws | The Strategist

And more, the chinky police are allowed by law to go into any foreign company - with five or more computers - and snoop around their networks, giving them the opportunity to steal anything interesting in the process.

• On November 1, 2018, China issued new provisions to the law titled “Regulations on Internet Security Supervision and Inspection by Public Security Organs” (公安机关互联网安全监督检查规定). The regulations, likely evolved to clarify portions of China’s 2017 Cybersecurity Law, give the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) broad powers over the computer networks of companies in China. These ostensibly include the authority to remotely conduct penetration testing on almost any business operating in China and copy any information related to user data or security measures found during the inspection.
  These new provisions specify no limits on the scope of vulnerability or security inspections and require extremely minimal reporting to be provided back to the corporation. Further, the regulations continue to use vague terminology and do not limit the scope of in-person or remote inspections for network security testing. We assess that the combination of existing MSS regulations with these new Cybersecurity Law provisions for the MPS will support Chinese government attempts to both censor and surveil foreign companies.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And no, the US does not have "these laws" in place.

Who needs "these laws" when Obama intercepted mobile of Angela Merkel?

Originally Posted by sabang

Huawei is not a State owned corporation, rather privately owned.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...I don't think there's a business entity in China that would refuse the government access to its data

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The absurd chinky laws have been posted in this thread several times, go back and read them.

Yes, as mentioned previously

Let's not forget the founder of Huawei is a (calls himself former hahahaha) chinky spook.

And no, the US does not have "these laws" in place.