Huawei is in large part built upon technology stolen from Cisco and Canada's Nortel Networks. In the latter case, there is strong evidence China was able to maintain access to Nortel's internal networks for over a decade (!!) which helped kill the 117 year old company. [1]<p>The government of China is systematically hacking corporations through the Ministry of State Security, and attempting to the switch the allegiances of all ethnically Chinese people across the world through the well-funded overseas political interference organization called the "United Front Work Department" [2]. In both the Australian and New Zealand parliaments, China has actually succeeded in installing individuals with <i>undeclared links</i> to government of China political interference and espionage organizations: Gladys Liu and Jian Yang. While there is no smoking gun that they are directly acting as spies, there is significant amounts of circumstantial evidence that they have been compromised by government of China influence operations. I don't need to explain the risk of politicians compromised by an adversarial government making key national defense decisions.<p>With this reality, why would any government risk allowing Huawei in their networks?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.afr.com/technology/how-chinese-hacking-felled-telecommunication-giant-nortel-20140526-iux6a" rel="nofollow">https://www.afr.com/technology/how-chinese-hacking-felled-te...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXPxWtl8Zw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXPxWtl8Zw</a>
>...the goal of American policy on Huawei is less about security and more about market share – and making sure America, not China, owns the future of 5G.<p>Bingo. Most HN readers saw this for exactly what it was. Most of the premise for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou was comical at best. 30 years of US companies ignoring ITAR with at most a small fine, only to suddenly watch the US issue an extradition warrant for a chinese CFO accused of doing the same thing? I guess if its the cold war its different.<p>Huawei made it to market first. Most of this theatricality from the US government is a last-ditch effort to buy time until US communications companies come out with something remotely 5G.<p>AT&T did their usual tactic with 4g, and rolled out a watered down branded 5GE experience even to phones with no 5G chipset whatsoever in a desperate attempt to brand something they'll likely buy at twice the cost from a US supplier in 2021 just to spite their loss at Huawei.<p>I hate the term intellectual property and its easy to slander people for theft, but the US paved this road in my opinion with massive cuts to education and a public policy that actively persecuted hackers and anyone interested in STEM since the sixties. The US decided to turn their colleges into luxury sports arenas driven by unforgivable student loans and underpaid graduate students as teachers. It drafted legal DMCA and DRM to punish curiousity and reward obedience, and now for the past decade its tried to play both sides of the field. Insisting STEM is something all its citizens must learn, while at the same time branding anyone too interested in technology as aberrant and unlawful, a circumventor in violation of the license for the product they own. Unless and until this changes, im sure China or Korea or some other slave of the international market will own 6, 7 and 8 G as well.
I think the main issue is that most europeans are just not so hot on a war with China as the americans are; even after a massive media campaign.<p>I believe the next move by the US will be to force TSMC not to supply Huawei.<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei-tech-chips-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-prepares-crackdown-on-huaweis-global-chip-supply-sources-idUSKBN21D2E4" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei-tech-chips-exc...</a><p>That will be a major blow to Huawei (and TSMC) and will force the Chinese to setup their own chip production as fast as possible. Will probably be quite a thing to follow.
So the US preaches nationalism, protectionism, and isolationism except when it's not in their own interest?<p>Edit: My point (which probably wasn't clear) was that if you run an "America First" agenda. Don't be surprised when your allies start prioritizing their own interest above mutual interests.
Does someone have a source without this nonsense?
<a href="https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_cc-session_bb176a60-85a0-4720-8f0a-4c000253c231" rel="nofollow">https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_...</a>
How is it that the west allowed Huawei to gain such a lead in 5G? If this has national security implications, why didn't the US support its domestic telecom firms?
After decades of campaigning against good security in internet protocols, mandating backdoors in networks, etc - government security organs are miffed that things can't safely run on untrusted networks.
What are the British thinking? Do they think they'll get a better deal from China than the US? Or is their intention to use this as a bargaining chip against the US?
America historically is infamous for making sure that anything besides their system (capitalism, supposedly) fails to work, and taking quite an active approach to make sure it happens.<p>In theory, if you believed you're doing things the <i>right</i> way then you shouldn't have to worry about making sure another system fails (if it doesn't fail, then maybe you were wrong?).<p>This applies as much to startups and their attitudes towards competitors (you shouldn't worry about what your competitor does, only that your product is good) as it does to nations and their attitudes towards competing economic and government systems.<p>The crux of this issue is purely political, and based on fears of potentially losing American supremacy. The article even references China as a "rival", and that's exactly what the fears are based on: rivalry.<p>If you believe that these anti-China sentiments from these politicians have anything to do with a belief in freedom, democracy, or human rights, then you're just as brainwashed as the supporters of the Chinese communist party. If our politicians believed in human rights then why didn't they do anything to stop China earlier? Why do they only care when China releases cheaper better technology that could potentially unseat their dominance? Seems like a convenient time to start caring about freedom. Why is accepting cheap plastic crap acceptable, but advanced technology not acceptable?<p>What is the end-game here? If you disagree with the Chinese system then you should be taking action against them. Otherwise it seems like the goal is just to keep the country in a subdued position for eternity, allowing human rights violations so long as your own supremacy is kept?
A lot people are to comfortable with china controlling a lot of the world's tech. I'm not in europe but it seems a strange thing to conclude. Either was I will vote against anyone in the US that does and its the best I can do.
China is indeed very divise for our global powerstructures.<p>This Video shows a WHO official battling with this(if you want to look kindly upon him): <a href="https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/nathanlawkc/status/1243889673207832577</a><p>What bugs me is that I'm really unsure if I should post anything critical of China, it's scary what that could mean for my family 30 years down the road.