No more OPPOs for me
OPPO - no opportunity to root your phone or even to install an alternative message app. Not a good buy.
931 posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
This is unfair competition raised to the level of governmental bullying -- wait, no, it's actual economic warfare. We all know the "security" arguments are completely bogus, and the allegations of intellectual property theft are no worse than what US companies are regularly alleged to do, and the sanctions-evasion allegations are unproven and unlikely to be proven. What's really going on is that Cisco and friends have spent enough lobbying dollars in Washington DC to get a number of rabid right-wingers up in arms.
Mike Pompeo warned U.S. allies on Monday against deploying equipment from Chinese telecoms gear manufacturer Huawei on their soil, saying it would make it more difficult for Washington to "partner alongside them".[Reuters, today]So let no-one pretend that the anti-Huawei campaign is non-political. It's a blatant attempt to distort free competition to protect US industry. "Partnering" with the USA looks less and less like a good idea these days.
It can't really be argued that the function was somehow separately provided
Of course it can. Lawyers can argue anything. And in this case they're right. The DNS is replaceable; it's what we used to call a value added service. 220.127.116.11 tells me how to find 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de by name instead of by number. If the DNS vanished overnight and was replaced by the new Yes Me Directory service, we'd be fine (and I'd be rich, which is whole point of having a monopoly and exactly why the incumbents are on the FCC side in this lawsuit, and why ATT and the European PTTs were against the original deregulation efforts).
I'm all for network neutrality in a reasonable form, but actually the FCC is correct - it's a consumer protection and free competition matter, and it should be regulated under consumer protection and anti-trust rules. Not that that's good news for consumers in Trumpland.
"The EU have admitted they will be enforcing a hard border. We done need nor seem to want to so thats the EU."
They didn't 'admit' anything (they are not in the dock, after all). They stated the obvious: when people or goods enter or leave the EU, that's crossing a border and of course checks will need to be applied, unless there is an international agreement in place. You don't just drive between France and Switzerland: you drive past a customs post in both countries. The agreements (including Schengen) are such that you probably won't be stopped if your car has EU or Swiss plates on. But there's a border. There is (and will be) such a border between France and the UK, with passport and visa checks because the UK is not in Schengen. Why would it be any different at the border between Ireland and the UK, after Brexit? Only because an agreement has been reached - an agreement which the House of Commons barfed over.
(And: Why isn't Ireland in Schengen? Because the UK isn't. If Ireland had joined Schengen, we'd already have passport and visa checks at the Ireland/Northern Ireland border.)
" the poor at the bottom of society commit more crime"
Actually that's true. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands and thousands of poor people. Statistically they commit more crimes, unless you count the money, in which case Madoff committed 64.8 billion times more crime than each poor person who stole a dollar.
It's a different form of moral bereftness. China has an utterly different view of human rights than Western countries do. But in this matter, the West is setting out to be utterly hypocritical, by claiming the merits of free global competition while misusing the security services to protect home industry against a cheaper, better foreign competitor.
Apparently, free competition is OK as long as we're winning, but undesirable when we're losing. (As the UK will rediscover to its cost, if Brexit happens.)
> I suspect also that there is a very serious security side to it
Why, when after years of rumours not one single shred of evidence that Huawei products are more risky than, say, Cisco's or Ericsson's or Alcatel's has ever been offered? If anything, the evidence is the opposite, since the UK/Huawei testing lab has given Huawei a completely clean bill of health.
This is all about protectionism. Quite how the NSA and GCHQ have been suborned to support protectionism is an interesting question.
> uproar if a westerner company called it "getting rid of mediocre people".
Or in IBM's case "getting rid of older people". It would be refreshingly honest compared to today's mealy-mouthed PC PR language. Ever since "Personnel" was replaced by "Human Resources" the hypocrisy in employment-related "news" stories has been getting worse and worse.
Most of the people who work for Huawei are also too young to remember Tiananmen Square. That is startlingly irrelevant as to whether a successful employee-owned company sells products that have security defects or undocumented backdoors. Until technical evidence is produced, nobody has any grounds to join the witch hunt. (Unless they're lobbying for companies that Huawei undersells, of course.)
That's technical evidence, not gossip or speculation that could be traced to any individual.
If there was technical evidence, I'm pretty sure NSA or GCHQ would have published it by now.
"snooping on PowerPlants, Govt Institutions, Telcos etc is a whole other ball game"
Yes. Please show me the evidence that Huawei has done that, ever, anywhere, or that their products have undocumented weaknesses that would allow such things to pass undetected.
Of course, it's like any witch hunt, it started without the slightest evidence of anything. Except that they were outselling Cisco.
I don't see any misdirection. If there are backdoors in Huawei products, it's because many governments want them, and telcos have no choice about acquiring equipment with backdoors. And do people realise that "call home" features are pretty much standard practice in everything today?
This whole business was cooked up by lobbyists for Huawei's Western competitors, who are seriously worried about their market share collapsing in the face of better, cheaper equipment. Don't like the fact that China has learned how to compete? Then use underhand techniques against them, rather than making your own products better and cheaper.
" Nobody denies their link to Government "
You think? What is it, then? It's a privately owned company whose shareholders are its own employees. Some employees and the founder did military service. How is this different from many companies in Western countries?
We know what's going on here. Unlike most allegations of security issues in the industry, there is no published information even about what class of security issues are alleged, let alone any actual specific information that might help a user avoid or fix the alleged issues. So the only rational conclusion is that it's all fiction, invented for reasons of commercial protectionism.
It's very Trumpian in fact: a Chinese company is doing better than its Western competitors, so we'll use fake news and abuse of power to damage it. I suppose all this particular action proves is that Oxford University is still part of the British Establishment, and responds to blasts on the usual dog whistle.
As others have said, it's entirely possible that Huawei has borrowed technology. Well, Cisco used some pretty intensive techniques to squash their early competitors, not to mention allegedly ripping off their alma mater:
In 1985, Bosack and Stanford employee Kirk Lougheed began a project to formally network Stanford's campus. They adapted Yeager's software into what became the foundation for Cisco IOS, despite Yeager's claims that he had been denied permission to sell the Blue Box commercially. On July 11, 1986, Bosack and Lougheed were forced to resign from Stanford and the university contemplated filing criminal complaints against Cisco and its founders for the theft of its software, hardware designs and other intellectual properties. [Wikipedia]So could you kindly get off your high horse, Mr Creativity Technologist?
You're wrong, if you're referring to insecure products when you say "wrong-doing". There is no evidence whatever in the public domain that Huawei products have intrinsic security issues of the kind that justifies banning them. And if there was any evidence, don't you think they'd publish it in a flash? This and the other bans are just the result of politics and lobbying in support of unfair competition.
Whether the sanctions-breaking allegations are true is as yet unclear, and nothing to do with product security.
wasn't that - as part of an all-out US technological war on China - the very point?
Of course, that is why the witch hunt started and why they are now rootling around looking for shell companies over the Iran allegations - not that they bother looking for shell companies when US kit turns up where it shouldn't. (Iran Contra, anybody?)
Not just the FCC. Cell phone operators the world over hate the idea of a batch of 100+ mobile phones moving at 1000km/hr, with a weak signal to boot. The impact on the base stations being overflown would be horrendous.
I think that airliners have been pretty safe against RFI since at least the 777 came out.
On the other hand, I'd feel happier if airport security checked that each mobile phone really was a mobile phone, just like they used to check if your laptop really was a laptop by making you boot it up.
My car used to conk out on very cold days when driving past the airport on the way to work. Cue paranoid thoughts about radar screwing up the electronics. (It was the first car I'd had with even an elementary on-board computer.) In the end it turned out to be a faulty temperature sensor that just happened to warm up enough to trigger the fault condition at that distance from home. It was surprisingly consistent, within a few hundred metres.
Well now you're getting deep into the metaphysics of randomness. Normally I wouldn't say this in public, but yes, IMNSHO there's a strong case for arguing that all apparent randomness including quantum randomness is just an extract from the digits of π. Why? Because when did you ever see an important equation in physics that didn't include π somewhere? Not that this will help anybody had up in an Oz court, of course.
π = 3
Because if an Australian service provider can decrypt traffic encrypted with keys that it doesn't possess, it can only mean that pseudorandom numbers don't really exist, and since the continuing digits of π appear to be pseudo-random, they therefore don't really exist, so π must be an integer.
So Australian legislators are right up there with - in fact, considerably stupider than - the Indiana legislature in 1897.
They do check but clearly if you're paranoid and/or prejudiced, no amount of checking will satisfy you. There has never been published even the slightest concrete evidence that Huawei kit is backdoored for the benefit of the Chinese authorities. The whole business is anti-competitive manouevering by lobbyists for their Western competitors, playing on Puzzle Palace paranoia and US Republican prejudice. Sadly the other 5 Eyes countries tend to toady up to the US.
Fortunately for Huawei, not all customers fall for the nonsense.
"lawful intercept" - it's been a feature for listening in to voice/data communications since before I can remember (the 1970's for voice and maybe early 1990's for data?)
The 1970s? You're kidding. Phone tapping goes back to when the phone was invented, and the Brits were tapping international telegraph cables in the 19th century, and of course very famously during WW I. It's always been legal (because it wasn't illegal), even before those pesky warrants were necessary in some cases.
I believe Queen Elizabeth I used to have her enemies' mail intercepted, quite lawfully.
You were sold down the river long ago.
No, we simply chose to be part of the world economy, and to encourage direct foreign investment, which is essential when running a permanent trade deficit.
Brexit of course would make the need for such investment even greater. Hopefully that won't happen, if the House of Commons comes to its senses and rebels against the small fraction of the Tory party that is current dictating.
as you probably know, Windows does not register a double-click when you move the mouse between the two clicks.
No, I didn't, and I've been clicking on Windows windows for an embarassingly large number of years. Thanks for the info.
But OTOH why the f*** would I move the mouse between the two clicks? I've never done that until you told me to (and you're right, it doesn't register).
Hypocrisy? Not sure. The Chinese concept of human rights is very different from the West's. In their logic, this comment may be entirely appropriate. Apart from anything else, as pointed out re the earlier story on this arrest, it's based on US claims of jurisdiction gone mad.
Let's hope the Canadian courts throw out the extradition warrant. If they show the same degree of independence that NZ courts have shown over Kim Dotcom, this could all take a while.
I have no idea whether she's guilty of anything, but it's beyond stupid of the Canadians to play this game as American puppets. The whole anti-Huawei campaign seems to be commercially motivated - now that the Chinese have learnt to compete on both quality and price, let's find some other way to stop them!
Washington once again leans on a vassal
You obviously didn't read where the head of GCSB said that the decision wasn't the result of 5 Eyes pressure. We all believe him, of course. It was all his own staff's work, of course. He never hears from the NSA, of course. He's quite unaware of whatever goes on in Washington, London, Ottawa and Canberra, of course. (Particularly ignorant about London and Ottawa, in this case.)
The "security" argument is supported by the following evidence: zilch. This is blatant toadying to the Americans plus the usual Kiwi thing of pretending to be independent but actually copying Australia. But it's not over yet and hopefully this will end up on a Ministerial desk in Wellington soon enough.
Patenting the obvious is a career-enhancement in many big hi-tech companies; the world leader is IBM, not Cisco. The issue is that patent examiners are under pressure to shift paper off their desks as quickly as possibly, and granting a patent is much less bother than denying it, because then there'll be follow up and all kinds of botheration.
And BTW when you take a job with one of these companies, the small print in the terms and conditions that you sign specifies that anything you invent belong me. It isn't a matter of choice.
"there must be potential to sell their systems in developing countries"
Nah. Their price point is way too high. If I was packaging for a developing country, I'd start with a Pi and open source code, and work down. IBM doesn't have that in its genes.
IBM's problem for 25 years has been too low revenue per employee. You can't fix that by applying more managers to the problem. IBM's main business skill for 10 years has been "resource actions."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019