MIT Cuts Funding Ties With Huawei, ZTE Citing US National Security Concerns (scmp.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Cuts Funding Ties With Huawei, ZTE Citing US National Security Concerns (scmp.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday April 3, 2019 @10:00PM from the cut-ties dept.

Following similar moves by Stanford, University of California Berkeley and University of Minnesota, Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it is cutting ties with Huawei and ZTE, citing U.S. national security concerns. "At this time, based on this enhanced review, MIT is not accepting new engagements or renewing existing ones with Huawei and ZTE or their respective subsidiaries due to federal investigations regarding violations of sanction restrictions," Richard Lester, MIT's associate provost, and Maria Zuber, the school's vice-president for research, said in a letter to faculty on Wednesday. The South China Morning Post reports: MIT's move is part of a broader effort to strengthen its vetting of research partners, which may affect relationships with other entities in mainland China, Hong Kong, Russia and Saudi Arabia. "Most recently we have determined that engagements with certain countries -- currently China [including Hong Kong], Russia and Saudi Arabia -- merit additional faculty and administrative review beyond the usual evaluations that all international projects receive," the letter said.

The Protect Our Universities Act, introduced last month by Representative Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, would establish a task force, led by the U.S. Department of Education, to maintain a list of "sensitive" research projects, including those financed by the defense and energy departments and U.S. intelligence agencies. The proposed body would monitor foreign student participation in those projects. Students with past or current Chinese citizenship would not be allowed access to the projects without a waiver from the director of national intelligence. The Act also calls for the intelligence director to create a list of foreign entities that "pose a threat of espionage with respect to sensitive research," and stipulates that Huawei and ZTE be included.

102 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Saudi Arabia? by Gabest · 2019-04-03 22:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?
1. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 22:08 · Score: -1
  
  Stupid towelheads are more dear to american jewggers than chinese.
2. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Not making Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty like everyone else. Thanks for asking.
3. Re:Saudi Arabia? by ExGemini · 2019-04-03 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Can't argue with that.
4. Re: Saudi Arabia? by ExGemini · 2019-04-03 22:42 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Well ofcourse! Towelheads only kill people, while chinese are nasty cause they "spy" on them.
5. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  Tell someone who cares
6. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 23:45 · Score: -1
  
  Not making Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty like everyone else. Thanks for asking.
  How do you "make" a country sign a treaty?
  Grow a fucking brain.
7. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  Never sign anything (NSA)
8. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Pull the same stunt on any non-signatory as America has on Venezuela.
  I see you too have no brain.
9. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  Muslim detected.
  Fuck off, Mohammad.
10. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Pull the same stunt on any non-signatory as America has on Venezuela.
  I see you too have no brain.
  Right.
  Because keeping the muderous authoritarian Socialist in power is more important than the well-being of the Venezuelan people.
  BECAUSE he's Socialist.
  Aaaaand the true colors of Socialism shine through.
11. Re:Saudi Arabia? by dcw3 · 2019-04-04 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we did similar things in WWII. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Sure Saudi has serious issues, but there are bigger fish (first) to fry in the middle east.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
12. Re: Saudi Arabia? by reanjr · 2019-04-04 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Boycotts or perhaps sanctions. Divestment of current projects. Just some thoughts off the top of my head that I just came up with.
13. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  OMG! A s-s-s-s-s-s-SOCIALIST!!!! ARRGGGHHHH!
  WTF, he might give everyone UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?! The HORROR! That's definitely worth putting in the same sentence as "MURDEROUS!" they're clearly both the same thing!!!
  Hey, remember murderous Pinochet? Murderous Mussolini? Murderous Franco? Murderous Hitler? Nah, they can't be as bad as a s-s-s-s-s-SOCIALIST!!!
14. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 03:18 · Score: -1
  
  OMG! A s-s-s-s-s-s-SOCIALIST!!!! ARRGGGHHHH!
  WTF, he might give everyone UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?! The HORROR! That's definitely worth putting in the same sentence as "MURDEROUS!" they're clearly both the same thing!!!
  Hey, remember murderous Pinochet? Murderous Mussolini? Murderous Franco? Murderous Hitler? Nah, they can't be as bad as a s-s-s-s-s-SOCIALIST!!!
  Maduro has probably already passed Pinochet and Franco in the numbers of dead caused by his policies.
  Thanks for helping to point out the murderous company actual Socialists comport with.
  Because Socialists ARE authoritarian dictators - the only way to "own the means of production" is to fucking TAKE it.
  Keep digging, you brain-dead crap-posting moron.
15. Re: Saudi Arabia? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  Are you having a stroke?
16. Re:Saudi Arabia? by larryjoe · 2019-04-04 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?
  This is an important question (i.e., the relative desirability and danger of these actions), and the answer must necessarily incorporate an understanding of relative motives and benefits. A disinterested third-party (say Vulcans) might view US actions to contain Huawei as unfair or harmful to societal interests in an international scope. Certainly from the viewpoint of Huawei and the Chinese government, such actions would be viewed as unfair and harmful in economic, military, and soft influence ways. However, from the viewpoint of the US and US institutions, containment of Huawei would only seem to be positive for economic competition, abatement of military risk, and other aspect such as soft influence. It's not reasonable to expect the US to act based on the Vulcan-viewpoint anymore than it is to expect China to act similarly, and it is especially unreasonable to expect any one country to take the Vulcan-viewpoint unilaterally.
17. Re:Saudi Arabia? by Aighearach · 2019-04-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?
  F-16 is a great airplane, if the enemy only has Russian planes. US exports to Saudi Arabia are a game-changer for them, because their enemies would usually be flying Russian planes.
  The F-16 is not a threat to the US. We have other planes that the F-16 can't even see! It is not a national security risk at all.
  Routers could be routing any data. Any. There is very little cap on how bad the damage to US interests could be, including National Security.
18. Re:Saudi Arabia? by CanadianMacFan · 2019-04-04 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear technology. Saw on a CBC article today (Apr 4) that the Trump administration was trying to get technology sold over to Saudi Arabia (SA). The breaking news was that SA was found to have a reactor under construction and Trump was just fine with that.
  So the country responsible for funding the organization and supplying most of the people that performed the 9/11 attacks, invades their neighbour, murders people in other countries, wants to get nuclear reactors without signing the non-proliferation treaty and it's okay. But another country has signed the treaty, has nothing to do with 9/11, and has never started a war wants nuclear reactors for energy and it's a problem.
Looked in the mirror? by TAz00 · 2019-04-03 22:30 · Score: -1, Offtopic

The hypocrisy is real, IBM, DELL, Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, would NEVER backdoor stuff for export.... Nosireee
Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 22:33 · Score: -1, Troll

It's like the USA, holder of more nukes than everyone else combined, accusing Iraq of biilding a nuke all over again.
Yeah, I am certain that Huawei has backdoor. *Even* if they'd actually be unaware of them.
If I was under Chinese government power, I'd avoid them like the plague.
But I'm not in China. I'm under US government power.
So my goal is to avoid *their* spying and terrorism.
Which means avoiding Cisco like the plague!
But that's beside the point, isn't it?
Because it is the ridiculous blatant childish bickering and basically begging to be followed by the USA that is currently making it a global joke, and having the EU, for the very first time, say "No!".
If China was acting *that* childish, nobod would accept them anymore either.
By the way: Why does the US not just make China look that ridiculous?
Oh wait! That would require competent leadership!
Anyway... Thanks Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA! :D
1. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Freischutz · 2019-04-03 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA! :D
  ... which leaves us with three world bullies The USA, China and Russia. Not exactly an improvement.
2. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 23:30 · Score: -1
  
  China and Russia are not bullies. They are fine, freedom loving capitalists.
  The socialist EU is bad. And Germany is bad, very bad!
3. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Freischutz · 2019-04-04 00:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's like the USA, holder of more nukes than everyone else combined, accusing Iraq of biilding a nuke all over again.
  Yeah, I am certain that Huawei has backdoor. *Even* if they'd actually be unaware of them. If I was under Chinese government power, I'd avoid them like the plague.
  But I'm not in China. I'm under US government power. So my goal is to avoid *their* spying and terrorism. Which means avoiding Cisco like the plague!
  But that's beside the point, isn't it? Because it is the ridiculous blatant childish bickering and basically begging to be followed by the USA that is currently making it a global joke, and having the EU, for the very first time, say "No!". If China was acting *that* childish, nobod would accept them anymore either.
  By the way: Why does the US not just make China look that ridiculous? Oh wait! That would require competent leadership!
  Anyway... Thanks Trump! For finally ending the reign of the world bully " USA" on a BWAHAHAHAHA! :D
  Niptick, Russia is the king of nukes with 4,350 usable nuclear warheads, while the United States comes in second at 3,800 usable nuclear warheads a fact that seems to have given Prez. Trump an inferiority complex.. Both have over 6000 warheads if you count ones that are in storage and not easily made combat ready and both countries keep about 1600 of their warheads instantly deployable. Neither country has more nukes than the rest of the world combined but Russia is a bit closer though.
4. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  China and Russia are not bullies. They are fine, freedom loving capitalists. The socialist EU is bad. And Germany is bad, very bad!
  That assessment makes you a peculiar Trumpkin/Marxist hybrid.
5. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by DNS-and-BIND · 2019-04-04 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  An end to American bullying is precisely what the EU has been demanding for a *long* time. The rest of the world, too. I'm confused by the gist of this comment.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
6. Re: Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  You're both crapflooding.
7. Re: Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  Don't let facts get in the way of a good "america bad" rant.
8. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-04-04 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  An end to American bullying is precisely what the EU has been demanding for a *long* time. The rest of the world, too. I'm confused by the gist of this comment.
  Fear not. If 'murrica is consigned to the dustbin of history, another nation will take it's place. Have we been learning Chinese? Good chance the world will be kowtowing to them.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
9. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by LazarusQLong · 2019-04-04 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry, the USA DOES NOT have more "nukes" than the rest of the world. Here are the numbers: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... Please, do at least 10 seconds of googling before you spout bullshit. Thank you.
  
  --
  "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
10. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to know my intention here: that assessment would make me a troll.
  Personally I thought this was so over the top bullshit that the sarcasm is easily apparent. But I suppose Poe's Law applies.
  When I read through the opinions of many registered users on this site, I see about the same quality critical thinking in their statements.
11. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  I'm also confused by the gist of this comment.
  Reading through your comment history on Slashdot one might think you believe the EU to be an authoritarian socialist shithole that can axiomatically do nothing else than bad things.
12. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it is an improvement. You see, at least the bullies spend some effort twarting each others plans. It is in practice much better than living under the hegemony of a big unchallenged bully.
13. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  OK, I'm sorry, but I don't believe those figures. Israel's number one? They've barely got started. And since when did Cambodia or Ceylon(sic) have nuclear weapons? How are either of them in the top ten!?
  Also somewhat unbelievable is the proposition that Russia is a "Nuclear free zone". They may even have more nukes than America at this point. That's absurd.
14. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by The+Snazster · 2019-04-04 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  A big part of nuclear deterrence is numbers but not because more of them might do more damage. Above a certain point, numbers are mainly for the psychological effect on the enemy's willingness to engage -- which is really the only reason for a rational society to even have nuclear weapons in the first place, these days. So numbers are important.
  
  Number of nukes isn't really the whole story though. I've seen the CEPs (the circles where the things might hit). Russia might aim at New York but the circle where the thing might hit is big enough to hit anywhere for hundreds of miles in any direction (I know, I know, no one wants it coming down ANYWHERE, but that's not the point. The US wants to throw a nuke at Moscow and the question is more like: "What's the address and how high above that do you want it to detonate?"
  
  When both sides know these facts, it doesn't take as many nukes to get the same psychological effect on the enemy as greater numbers might get.
  
  On the charge of hypocrisy in advocating no further countries with nuclear weapons when a country already has them? Less nuclear weapons in the world (to a point) is a good thing, so is fewer countries having them. The problem with additional countries getting them is they DO NOT need them to preclude the use of nuclear weapons against them. One of more of the existing nuclear armed countries would swat anyone who tried. So they don't need a nuclear counterattack capability of their own and they definitely don't need a nuclear attack capability so yes, it is not a hypocritical for any country, whether is already has them or not, to seek to discourage any more countries from having them. It is in the best interests of the human race that no additional countries gain the capability, or build the bombs.
15. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Reading through your comment history on Slashdot one might think you believe the EU to be an authoritarian socialist shithole that can axiomatically do nothing else than bad things.
  A.K.A., the Truth
16. Re:Ridiculous childish trade war by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  The point of having nukes when you are a small nation is to deter conventional attacks as gambling that you won't escalate top nuclear retaliation if you are losing the conventional war is high risk/low reward.
To fight the terrorists? ;) by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 22:39 · Score: 0

Saudi Arabia are their "best friends in the region". (Which is code for "puppet dictator vassal state".)
Which makes it clear that the US never was against IS-style shariah law. As that's Saudi Arabia's law too.
They were against those countries not being puppets anymore!
So I guess they export their spying Cisco routes to SA, because SA is on the verge of breaking off too, and they want to keep a tight grip on those "allies", err, I mean soon-to-be "terrorists"! ;)
Re: Israeli Arabia? by NAZI++NOSTALGIA! · 2019-04-03 22:39 · Score: -1

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiiiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiiiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiiiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii itQMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi iJHMMMMMMMW6iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i iiiYNMMMMMMMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii iiiii5NMMMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii iiiiiii5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
need to know basis by sad_ · 2019-04-03 22:49 · Score: 1

even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
1. Re:need to know basis by Freischutz · 2019-04-03 23:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration. I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his first intelligence briefing on the subject was over.
2. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  yes , that the Chinese have discovered and been using all the back doors your a merkin cia \ nsa have put in everything.
3. Re:need to know basis by rmdingler · 2019-04-04 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Even, and perhaps, especially, with the excessive proliferation of information in the present day, the illusory truth effect is worth consideration.
  
  YOU ONLY USE 10 percent of your brain. Eating carrots improves your eyesight. Vitamin C cures the common cold. Crime in the United States is at an all-time high. None of those things are true. But the facts don't actually matter: People repeat them so often that you believe them. Welcome to the “illusory truth effect,” a glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
4. Re:need to know basis by gtall · 2019-04-04 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there is. MIT and the rest don't want their government funding cut because Bozo got his knickers in a twist over Chinese gear.
5. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
  but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.....
  Says the folks who spent over two years flogging COLLUSION!!!! and RUSSIA!!! RUSSIA!!! RUSSIA!!!!
  Methinks you doth project too much.
6. Re:need to know basis by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-04-04 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
  MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
  So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
  Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:need to know basis by dcw3 · 2019-04-04 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not that "Bozo" has any authority to cut MIT's (Stanford or Berkley) funding, because if he could have, he would have done so already. But don't let facts interfere with your agenda.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
8. Re:need to know basis by thereddaikon · 2019-04-04 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.
9. Re:need to know basis by Freischutz · 2019-04-04 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
  MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
  So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
  Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
  Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
10. Re:need to know basis by Highdude702 · 2019-04-04 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Orange Man Bad
11. Re:need to know basis by Freischutz · 2019-04-04 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.
  I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this...
  
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government...
  ... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?
12. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
  but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
  MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
  So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
  Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
  Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
  <BUBBLE>Aaaaand Mueller is going to indict Trump for colluding with Russia.
  Any.
  Day.
  Now.</BUBBLE>
  The TDS is strong in this one!
13. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire). but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
  MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
  So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
  Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
  Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
  <BUBBLE>Aaaaand Mueller is going to indict Trump for colluding with Russia.
  Any.
  Day.
  Now.</BUBBLE>
  The TDS is strong in this one!
  More likely the Southern District of New York is going to indict Trump for fraud, falsifying business records, tax cheating, insurance fraud ... the list goes on. Trump isn't dirtier than Al Capone but unlike Capone he is so stupid they can get him on practically anything because he covers his tracks so badly.
14. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  >Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei
  Hate literally everything else about the man, but don't discount China as an enormous threat to the freedom of humanity just because you don't like him. He is without a doubt 100% right about this even thought his heavy handed solutions are probably not the best way to prevent China from consuming the world.
15. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  >Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei Hate literally everything else about the man, but don't discount China as an enormous threat to the freedom of humanity just because you don't like him. He is without a doubt 100% right about this even thought his heavy handed solutions are probably not the best way to prevent China from consuming the world.
  Ok, fair enough, now prove it. I'm not asking for much, just that you prove your accusations before we burn the witch (a.k.a. Huawei).
16. Re:need to know basis by Freischutz · 2019-04-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Orange Man Bad
  Precisely! ...and the oranges of my investigations support that conclusion, even the Parson Brown grown in Texas.
17. Re:need to know basis by thereddaikon · 2019-04-04 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:
  Really? So what does this mean?
  
  I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his first intelligence briefing on the subject was over.
  
  ... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?
  Whattaboutism. Believe it or not but a lot of us don't care if our government is spying on other governments. We only care if the others do it back to us. Yes that may sound hypocritical or jingoistic but welcome to realpolitik. You try to get as much dirt on the other guy you can and prevent him from doing the same unto you. That's how this game works and always has worked. I want my country and allies to do well and everyone else can kick dirt for all I care. It doesn't matter if they are nice people or not. I'm still rooting for the home team. But the fact that China's government is tyrannical certainly helps. We do not live in a post scarcity world, we may one day but we don't now. There is only so much to go around and if you want your loved ones to have a safe and comfortable life then someone else has to miss out. It sucks but that's the truth. I'd rather my loved ones be the ones to benefit.
18. Re:need to know basis by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-04-04 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Oooo, I'm a shill now.
  Yeah, read though all of the posts. Hardly a word about Huawei, and post after post after post about 'Murica. Textbook shill. Although if you aren't a shill, you are what we call a useful idiot, one who participates in trying to make this about 'murrica, and not one bit about Huawei.
  So anyhow, buy one, and put economic sensitive information on it? Tell your emplopyer that since it a Huawei, you know it is safe.
  Quickly my shilly shill, make it about 'murrica.
  BTW, this is classic textbook deflection on your part along with the other shills. Change the subject. Get people arguing about something else.
  Me?I'm just happy trolling you, Shill out.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
19. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  MIT's vice president basically stated in a reuter's article that they are cutting ties with Huawei, etc. because of government pressure, and that they don't want to lose potential federal funding.
  This has nothing to do with whether or not MIT has the capability to do competent computer investigations, and everything to do with political pressure from the US government.
20. Re:need to know basis by Highdude702 · 2019-04-04 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  +2 Progressive points, youbmay redeem them from Nancy Pelosi or AOC at ypur convenience.
21. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this (where there is smoke, there is fire).
  but people in the know, don't want to share what they know.
  Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.
  MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.
  So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.
  Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.
  Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-preservation to kick in.
  <BUBBLE>Aaaaand Mueller is going to indict Trump for colluding with Russia.
  Any.
  Day.
  Now.</BUBBLE>
  The TDS is strong in this one!
  More likely the Southern District of New York is going to indict Trump for fraud, falsifying business records, tax cheating, insurance fraud ... the list goes on. Trump isn't dirtier than Al Capone but unlike Capone he is so stupid they can get him on practically anything because he covers his tracks so badly.
  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
  And it's gonna be Fitzmas when Dick Cheney gets indicted for exposing Valerie Plame.
  Keep digging, shit-for-brains.
  Your fantasies are hilarious.
22. Re:need to know basis by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-04-04 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  MIT's vice president basically stated in a reuter's article that they are cutting ties with Huawei, etc. because of government pressure, and that they don't want to lose potential federal funding.
  This has nothing to do with whether or not MIT has the capability to do competent computer investigations, and everything to do with political pressure from the US government.
  Kinda depends on what you are doing. If you are dealing in anything classified, yeah - that would involve not using compromised equipment. And if the equipment is compromised, you would know what the issue is.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
23. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!
  suppose that means america is pretty bad ass if you need a persistent smear campaign against it.
  another note to shills - you're only convincing the tards, so at the end of the day, its a bunch of shills and tards pumping your country up, which is probably not the image youre going after.
24. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Except the "whataboutism", isn't about the US government spying on other nations, but rather the US government violating constitutional protections. As a US citizen I should be more concern about that, than potentially China spying on me.
  Moreover, if you aren't a US citizen or the Chinese citizen, then I guess it doesn't matter if you use either's equipment, because evidently you're screwed both ways.
25. Re:need to know basis by thereddaikon · 2019-04-04 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  You are talking about two separate issues. I agree that the US gov spying on its people is unconstitutional. But that isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about how America spies on other nations. Which I think is not only fine but necessary. It's expected. It's also expected that we will do our best to stop them from spying on us. Bringing up the US spying on its own people is irrelevant to this discussion and complaining the the US also spies on other nations is whattaboutism.
26. Re:need to know basis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Considering that Freischultz sounds like a Germanic name, I would conclude that he bring up that US is also spying on e.g. Germany or stealing IP isn't irrelevant at all, but quite pertinent to the conversation as to whether or not to trust the US and its equipment vs trusting Chinese equipment where no evidence whatsoever has been given in regards to spying.. Germany's prime minister lines were tapped by the US, not the Chinese...
27. Re:need to know basis by CanadianMacFan · 2019-04-04 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you assumer that there is something to this? Back when Bush was telling the world about WMDs in Iraq they offered no proof but kept telling everyone that they were there. When it came time for the Canadian Parliament to vote on whether or not Canada should join the coalition the PM asked Bush for proof. Even just the party leaders to be shown and we were told that the information was too sensitive. So Canada stayed out of the Iraq invasion.
  Why is this time any different? Now it's Trump telling the world that Huawei equipment will spy on you. There's no evidence. Just there's the possibility. We've heard the story before, Chicken Little.
  I'd rather take the possibility of the Chinese spying on me over the knowledge that the US/Canada/UK/Australia/New Zealand are spying on me.
Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-03 23:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!
Oh, wait...
Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:00 · Score: 0

Sinophobia - the new Russophobia.
1. Re: Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Someone is afraid of sinuses?
2. Re:Coming soon by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Goddamn "reboots". Can't they think of anything original?
Whaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:06 · Score: 0

https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/07...
Good riddance by richman555 · 2019-04-04 00:11 · Score: 1

It sounds like a good time to take our technology sector back in the US. Good riddance Huawei!! Go spy on Russia instead!
1. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  The Chinese can reverse engineer almost anything. Just buy one and you are good to go. Failing that shot down or failed devices in war zones tell them plenty.
  University spying is mostly non-productive, but it tells the Chinese how far the Americans are behind, and what they think the demand or product is worth. Based on that China can run a business case to work out production costs and scale to deter domestic US manufacturing.
Why stop at students? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:22 · Score: -1

So called 'American chinese' have been stealing secrets and sending them back to their motherland for years. None of them are above suspicion and it's past time we did something. I'm talking internment camps here.
Re: Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocea by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:37 · Score: 0

In contrast with just having military bases around the world and outright starting wars...
Where is the evidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:53 · Score: 0

All I see is propaganda
Citations please!!
1. Re: Where is the evidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Bye!
2. Re: Where is the evidence? by LazarusQLong · 2019-04-04 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  in reports that the US intelligence community have been publishing for decades, but you are too stupid to read? https://www.bloomberg.com/news... https://www.zdnet.com/article/... https://www.zdnet.com/article/... https://www.theinquirer.net/in... So, do some reading then find similar articles in any reputable (read, not RT) reporting agency about American companies installing backdoors, and get back to me.
  
  --
  "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
Re: Not like the Chinese build islands in the oce by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:05 · Score: 0

Having bases around the world is bad, because reasons.
Re:Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean by LazarusQLong · 2019-04-04 01:10 · Score: 1

... and the international court ruled against China in a well - publicized court case, but no one cares! But let America BUY AND PAY FOR a bit of land in say, Okinawa, and assholes get their panties in a twist!

--
"Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
Re:Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean by Ol+Olsoc · 2019-04-04 01:15 · Score: 1

Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!
Oh, wait...
Yeah, but 'Murrica something something something.
Can't win this one my friend, the shills will pounce on you like crocodiles on a wildebeest.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Queue the ACs by dcw3 · 2019-04-04 01:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Let's count how many ACs come to the defense of China now.

--
Just another day in Paradise
1. Re:Queue the ACs by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, welcome the NSA Overlords.
2. Re:Queue the ACs by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  total information awareness
  
  mwahahaha
3. Re:Queue the ACs by Ensign_Expendable · 2019-04-04 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Re:Queue the ACs by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  What we've seen so far is a bunch of idiot Democrats (and no, I'm not a Republican and don't think Trump is doing a particularly good job although he's not doing a particularly bad job, either) and likely Hispanic people whining about Trump. They're such useful idiots that the Chicoms don't even have to do anything to derail this discussion.
Re: Not like the Chinese build islands in the oce by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:52 · Score: 0

It's the same shit, but with omnipresence around the world. For no noble reason, I'm sure.
Routers are Worse by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 01:53 · Score: 0

Yes, we're selling tactical weapons to prevent the Iranian terrorist regime from conquering the entire middle east. Due to Obama's negligence, they now have encircled 75% of Saudi Arabia and are very close to controlling all shipping through the Suez, by controlling both sides of the Bab el Mendeb.
Those tactical weapons (you know, defensive anti missile systems and fighters) have nothing on handing to the Chinese government the ability to shut off all commerce and the power infrastructure of the entire western world. The second is so grossly negligent that only a shill would suggest it.
1. Re:Routers are Worse by MightyMartian · 2019-04-04 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  Do you seriously think Iran could project that much force? Even if they had nuclear weapons, they're in a neighborhood crowded with nukes. Israel, at the very least, could wipe Tehran off the map, and while Russia has a part time role as good buddy to Iran, I doubt very much the Kremlin would look fondly on Iran conquering the Middle East.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
fagoRz by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 02:03 · Score: -1

BSD fanatics? I've argued by Eric fly They lloked also dead, its teeth into when and Michael Smith Over to yet another case you want to
The smoke? by nnappe · 2019-04-04 02:24 · Score: 1

You said that there's no proof of what the US government says, but that its becoming clear that there is some truth because ... the US government keeps saying it?
Mind, the summary clearly states that the government is about to pass a bill, proof or no proof. Universities reacting to the bill, or to US federal gov pressure, are not a valid indication that there's anything else but smoke. Ever been to a music show? There's no fire behind that smoke.
It's about time by Sqreater · 2019-04-04 02:29 · Score: 1

Finally someone takes foreign threats seriously. However, in the end this will become merely widow dressing as hyper-liberal academics - who know better than anyone else of course - will find ways to ignore or circumvent the restrictions. Also, so many exceptions will be granted that the attempt will become laughable. That's the American way.

--
E Proelio Veritas.
Fast move to whataboutism [Re:Saudi Arabia?] by XXongo · 2019-04-04 02:46 · Score: 0

US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?
Wow, the very first post is whataboutism. Way to go, /.
Re:Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 03:05 · Score: 0

Not any worse than our "number one ally" bulldozing people's homes and then creating new settlements on top of the rubble.
CHINA provides SPECTRUM users backdoor? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 03:42 · Score: 0

See subject & imo (in modems w/ a login screen yet no routing (logon to WHAT is the question, right?)).
WHY EVEN PUT LOGON CODE IN THEN @ ALL & NOBODY & I mean NOBODY CAN LOGIN TO IT PERIOD!
I did as in years past & requested a modem w/ routing (for creating firewalling, port filtering, DNS change etc.).
Got CANCELLED @ warehouse level!
AFTER I went to Spectrum local outlets asking for a NEW modem w/ more than 1 port WHICH I DID IN THE PAST no problem & got before.
They had no NEW DOCSIS 3.1 COMPLIANT MODEMS w/ more than 1 port @ LOCAL outlets (thus request to their warehouse THEIR PEOPLE DID 4 ME).
I'm 'stuck' unless I buy a firewall router to bridge w/ a NO SECURITY "dumb brick" - I DON'T TRUST IT & I'd rather BUY an "ALL IN 1" cablemodem!
EDIT: I got one (had to get separate router due to telephony use over IP here (no 'all in 1' modems had it @ BestBuy)).
I need DNS change/portfilter/firewalling in a MODEM/ROUTER to AVOID a China TECHNICOLOR REBRAND modem that "ODDLY" has a LOGON SCREEN NOBODY CAN ACCESS: Not EVEN the ISP despite sending a bin config file & WHY A LOGON TO A MACID IN A NIC (dumb passthru)
I had to RIG MY HOSTS FILE JUST TO SEE A LOGON SCREEN!
(In other routing featuring modems they gave me in the past I never had THAT issue)
Their techs @ ALL LEVELS SEE it on their private WAN they peer up to other networks (& THEY CAN' LOGON EITHER).
* QUESTION - WHY INSERT LOGON CODE INTO A DUMB MODEM?
SCREAMS "bad" imo like a NETWORK OF ATTACK BOTS in remotely compromisable 'modems'!
Funniest part was KHYBER Dec. 25 2018 (of all here on /.) AGREED w/ me on it https://slashdot.org/users2.pl... (post was deleted but SHOWS on his HISTORY screen).
APK
P.S.=> CHINA = THIEVES https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
Correct me IF I'm off (hope I am)
Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 04:00 · Score: 0

They'll still accept boatloads of Chinese applicants whilst ruining pi day forever for Massachusetts-born National Merit Scholars with high SATs, ACTs and 11 APs. (5 taken so far at grade 5, the other 6 on course to be the same).
Not that I'm bitter about them trampling on the dreams and aspirations that my kid has held since he was 7. (I have no idea where those aspirations came from, but they, and the resulting driven ambition, certainly didn't get pushed upon him by his parents.)
MIT loves being in Massachusetts and taking its tax breaks, but long ago stopped caring for anything more than bottom line.
Re:Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 06:57 · Score: 0

Not any worse than our "number one ally" bulldozing people's homes and then creating new settlements on top of the rubble.
China isn't surrounded by much more populous neighbors that teach their kids China doesn't have the right to exist.
Other than that? You keep on with that bog-standard anti-Semitism. It's getting aired now, and it's helping drag "progressives" down as they sooo richly deserve.
Re:Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean by Solandri · 2019-04-04 07:25 · Score: 1

Those islands are trivial (if a bit costly) to overcome. The U.S. just has to help the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. build their own islands. If you accept China's claim that artificial islands extend territorial waters, then building one just outside of China's territorial waters (200 nautical miles from China's shore) cuts it in half to 100 nmi (new border is the midway point between two land masses). That allows you to build a new island 100 miles from China's shores. Those new islands cut China's territorial waters in half again to 50 nmi. Repeat until the only territorial waters China has are just a few miles from their shoreline. At that point China can either live with their vastly reduced territorial waters, or they can give up the silly notion that artificial islands extend territorial waters.
Should have worked more by AHuxley · 2019-04-04 10:14 · Score: 1

with Taiwan and it would have all been great.
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. Nations that like and support US freedom.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Whataboutism is a stupid fucking argument. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 11:22 · Score: 0

Whataboutism is a stupid fucking argument.
Ol Olsoc calling out the kettles by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 17:17 · Score: 0

Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-Chinese propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Chyna BAD!
Now for the shillls with mod points to mod up this post.
FTFY
Ol Olsoc your selective outrage about one million in China seems odd considering 'Murrica was one of the stand out pioneers of racial genocide.
You overlooking atrocities against native Americans is kinda a dead giveaway isn't it?