|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Northern Ireland27466 Posts
No economic incentive no, doesn’t mean there’s not other potential incentives there.
The shambles here is the UK giving them the gig and then reversing on that, with a potentially pretty huge bill to foot.
To my knowledge it’s not like there’s any new dirt on Huawei that’s come out in the interim, it’s alignment with the US’ increasing anti-China positions that is driving this.
|
On July 15 2020 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think more than LGBT-activists being a unified movement whom all want wide-ranging changes to society there is the impression that there is a big tend approach from anti-LGBT activists because that enables them to be opposed to even the most simple requests. (Accept that some people are homosexual.) Which I don't get. I am very pro LGBT rights. I don't want male to female trans-people to be allowed to compete in women's sports. And to me, it seems like the only 'rational' explanation for why opponents of LGBT rights claim there is this big unified movement they need to combat is that they don't want to give even the most basic rights. For me, there's no conflict between supporting LGBT rights and opposing the more obscure wishes from a small percentage of trans people, much like I can identify as a feminist (person who wants equality between genders which mostly takes the form of increased rights for women because they have historically been and in some ways continue to be the discriminated part) without agreeing that men should be eliminated. It's the same nonsense we see from NRA in the US - refuse to give in to even the most reasonable requests because some people who support those reasonable requests also have wishes that go far beyond that.
To be honest, I think it's a wholly disingenuous argument, one that does not want to address specifics it 'feels bad about disagreeing with' or feels like it's impossible to disagree with without exposing ones internalized bigotry under the guise of opposing a wide-ranged societal corruption. In principle, it's like being opposed to reducing pollution because you don't want to impose forced veganism upon the entire population. Sure, there might be environmentalists who want to eliminate the entire meat industry, but if someone proposes 'let's stop being so dependent on coal and instead opt for renewables so we can reduce emissions', 'forced veganism for everybody' is not the argument you are dealing with.
Also, I think there is a very big and significant difference between wanting acceptance for the non-nuclear family and wanting to dismantle the nuclear family. I'm very happy that I have a mom and a dad who are still married, but if someone for whatever reason isn't in that position, I want to make life good for them, too.
I think it stems from the fact that certain LGBT activists are, in fact, disingenuous about their goals. They claim that same-sex adoption is not part of their agenda. For some that's true, while others cynically lie about it because they know the social acceptance of that is low. The Right considers this a form of manufacturing of consent, if you will. First legalize same-sex marriage and then once people get used to the idea, start fighting for adoption rights.
And by nuclear family I meant two parents with kids, regardless of their orientation.
|
Social acceptance of same-sex adoption is low?
I'd think that it is a pretty clear-cut case when singles and hetero pairs can adopt children that same-sex pairs should also be able to do that.
Conservatives really have inexplicable strange problems with the weirdest stuff.
|
Norway28916 Posts
On July 16 2020 06:20 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think more than LGBT-activists being a unified movement whom all want wide-ranging changes to society there is the impression that there is a big tend approach from anti-LGBT activists because that enables them to be opposed to even the most simple requests. (Accept that some people are homosexual.) Which I don't get. I am very pro LGBT rights. I don't want male to female trans-people to be allowed to compete in women's sports. And to me, it seems like the only 'rational' explanation for why opponents of LGBT rights claim there is this big unified movement they need to combat is that they don't want to give even the most basic rights. For me, there's no conflict between supporting LGBT rights and opposing the more obscure wishes from a small percentage of trans people, much like I can identify as a feminist (person who wants equality between genders which mostly takes the form of increased rights for women because they have historically been and in some ways continue to be the discriminated part) without agreeing that men should be eliminated. It's the same nonsense we see from NRA in the US - refuse to give in to even the most reasonable requests because some people who support those reasonable requests also have wishes that go far beyond that.
To be honest, I think it's a wholly disingenuous argument, one that does not want to address specifics it 'feels bad about disagreeing with' or feels like it's impossible to disagree with without exposing ones internalized bigotry under the guise of opposing a wide-ranged societal corruption. In principle, it's like being opposed to reducing pollution because you don't want to impose forced veganism upon the entire population. Sure, there might be environmentalists who want to eliminate the entire meat industry, but if someone proposes 'let's stop being so dependent on coal and instead opt for renewables so we can reduce emissions', 'forced veganism for everybody' is not the argument you are dealing with.
Also, I think there is a very big and significant difference between wanting acceptance for the non-nuclear family and wanting to dismantle the nuclear family. I'm very happy that I have a mom and a dad who are still married, but if someone for whatever reason isn't in that position, I want to make life good for them, too. I think it stems from the fact that certain LGBT activists are, in fact, disingenuous about their goals. They claim that same-sex adoption is not part of their agenda. For some that's true, while others cynically lie about it because they know the social acceptance of that is low. The Right considers this a form of manufacturing of consent, if you will. First legalize same-sex marriage and then once people get used to the idea, start fighting for adoption rights. And by nuclear family I meant two parents with kids, regardless of their orientation.
But if you are opposed to gay adoption but positive towards gay marriage, then your logical position should be 'I'm opposed to gay adoption, but positive towards gay marriage', not 'I am opposed to both because one might lead to the other'. People who are against gay marriage are against gay marriage, however they might find it more convenient to argue against something 'possibly further down the line instead' because they think the gay marriage argument is a losing one.
I mean, that society will evolve towards a more positive attitude towards gay adoption if more people see more functional gay people in loving stable relationships (marriages) who would make great parents, sure, there's truth to that. But that 'people in our society will become more accepting of homosexuals and thus grant them even more rights if we as society start accepting them just a little' is not a reason for society to not accept them a little, if anything it's a reason to accelerate the degree society accepts them. In Norway in 1998 only 25% of people thought homosexuals should be allowed to marry and adopt the same way heterosexuals should, in 2007 the figure had grown to 61%. I expect Poland will follow the same path, with the same tired arguments used by the opposition, where the only consequence is that gay people in Poland end up having vastly worse lives during the period before they become accepted, so the longer you wait, the more human suffering there is.
|
On July 16 2020 06:39 Simberto wrote:
Social acceptance of same-sex adoption is low?
I'd think that it is a pretty clear-cut case when singles and hetero pairs can adopt children that same-sex pairs should also be able to do that.
Conservatives really have inexplicable strange problems with the weirdest stuff.
It's low here and it's one of main reasons why it's so easy for PiS to build "conspiracy" narratives. Trzaskowski and the rest of his party knew they're not going to win the election with just socially progressive votes, so they were avoiding making clear declarations on LGBT issues in the campaign. Unfortunately for them, PiS's did a good job on bringing up their past statements to make it look like they're hiding their actual policies because they know they're unpopular.
Best example would be Warsaw's vicepresident (who happens to be gay) saying that pushing for same-sex couples adoption is not a good idea at the moment because people have to be accustomed to gays through legalization of civil unions first. It might be a reasonable position, but it's terrible statement to make as a politician in a (this might be shocking) socially conservative country, because it allows PiS to present the liberal opposition as "detached elites" who believe that people are stupid and have to be tricked into accepting their policies.
On July 16 2020 06:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 06:20 maybenexttime wrote:On July 15 2020 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think more than LGBT-activists being a unified movement whom all want wide-ranging changes to society there is the impression that there is a big tend approach from anti-LGBT activists because that enables them to be opposed to even the most simple requests. (Accept that some people are homosexual.) Which I don't get. I am very pro LGBT rights. I don't want male to female trans-people to be allowed to compete in women's sports. And to me, it seems like the only 'rational' explanation for why opponents of LGBT rights claim there is this big unified movement they need to combat is that they don't want to give even the most basic rights. For me, there's no conflict between supporting LGBT rights and opposing the more obscure wishes from a small percentage of trans people, much like I can identify as a feminist (person who wants equality between genders which mostly takes the form of increased rights for women because they have historically been and in some ways continue to be the discriminated part) without agreeing that men should be eliminated. It's the same nonsense we see from NRA in the US - refuse to give in to even the most reasonable requests because some people who support those reasonable requests also have wishes that go far beyond that.
To be honest, I think it's a wholly disingenuous argument, one that does not want to address specifics it 'feels bad about disagreeing with' or feels like it's impossible to disagree with without exposing ones internalized bigotry under the guise of opposing a wide-ranged societal corruption. In principle, it's like being opposed to reducing pollution because you don't want to impose forced veganism upon the entire population. Sure, there might be environmentalists who want to eliminate the entire meat industry, but if someone proposes 'let's stop being so dependent on coal and instead opt for renewables so we can reduce emissions', 'forced veganism for everybody' is not the argument you are dealing with.
Also, I think there is a very big and significant difference between wanting acceptance for the non-nuclear family and wanting to dismantle the nuclear family. I'm very happy that I have a mom and a dad who are still married, but if someone for whatever reason isn't in that position, I want to make life good for them, too. I think it stems from the fact that certain LGBT activists are, in fact, disingenuous about their goals. They claim that same-sex adoption is not part of their agenda. For some that's true, while others cynically lie about it because they know the social acceptance of that is low. The Right considers this a form of manufacturing of consent, if you will. First legalize same-sex marriage and then once people get used to the idea, start fighting for adoption rights. And by nuclear family I meant two parents with kids, regardless of their orientation. But if you are opposed to gay adoption but positive towards gay marriage, then your logical position should be 'I'm opposed to gay adoption, but positive towards gay marriage', not 'I am opposed to both because one might lead to the other'. People who are against gay marriage are against gay marriage, however they might find it more convenient to argue against something 'possibly further down the line instead' because they think the gay marriage argument is a losing one.
That depends on how you define being positive towards gay marriage. I think most of people who are okay with gay marriage but not with gay adoption are "positive" about the former in a way that they don't care about it and wouldn't mind it if it was legal. Then it makes sense to be opposed to both because gay adoption is the only of the two that they actually care about.
|
On July 16 2020 06:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 06:20 maybenexttime wrote:On July 15 2020 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think more than LGBT-activists being a unified movement whom all want wide-ranging changes to society there is the impression that there is a big tend approach from anti-LGBT activists because that enables them to be opposed to even the most simple requests. (Accept that some people are homosexual.) Which I don't get. I am very pro LGBT rights. I don't want male to female trans-people to be allowed to compete in women's sports. And to me, it seems like the only 'rational' explanation for why opponents of LGBT rights claim there is this big unified movement they need to combat is that they don't want to give even the most basic rights. For me, there's no conflict between supporting LGBT rights and opposing the more obscure wishes from a small percentage of trans people, much like I can identify as a feminist (person who wants equality between genders which mostly takes the form of increased rights for women because they have historically been and in some ways continue to be the discriminated part) without agreeing that men should be eliminated. It's the same nonsense we see from NRA in the US - refuse to give in to even the most reasonable requests because some people who support those reasonable requests also have wishes that go far beyond that.
To be honest, I think it's a wholly disingenuous argument, one that does not want to address specifics it 'feels bad about disagreeing with' or feels like it's impossible to disagree with without exposing ones internalized bigotry under the guise of opposing a wide-ranged societal corruption. In principle, it's like being opposed to reducing pollution because you don't want to impose forced veganism upon the entire population. Sure, there might be environmentalists who want to eliminate the entire meat industry, but if someone proposes 'let's stop being so dependent on coal and instead opt for renewables so we can reduce emissions', 'forced veganism for everybody' is not the argument you are dealing with.
Also, I think there is a very big and significant difference between wanting acceptance for the non-nuclear family and wanting to dismantle the nuclear family. I'm very happy that I have a mom and a dad who are still married, but if someone for whatever reason isn't in that position, I want to make life good for them, too. I think it stems from the fact that certain LGBT activists are, in fact, disingenuous about their goals. They claim that same-sex adoption is not part of their agenda. For some that's true, while others cynically lie about it because they know the social acceptance of that is low. The Right considers this a form of manufacturing of consent, if you will. First legalize same-sex marriage and then once people get used to the idea, start fighting for adoption rights. And by nuclear family I meant two parents with kids, regardless of their orientation. But if you are opposed to gay adoption but positive towards gay marriage, then your logical position should be 'I'm opposed to gay adoption, but positive towards gay marriage', not 'I am opposed to both because one might lead to the other'. People who are against gay marriage are against gay marriage, however they might find it more convenient to argue against something 'possibly further down the line instead' because they think the gay marriage argument is a losing one. I mean, that society will evolve towards a more positive attitude towards gay adoption if more people see more functional gay people in loving stable relationships (marriages) who would make great parents, sure, there's truth to that. But that 'people in our society will become more accepting of homosexuals and thus grant them even more rights if we as society start accepting them just a little' is not a reason for society to not accept them a little, if anything it's a reason to accelerate the degree society accepts them. In Norway in 1998 only 25% of people thought homosexuals should be allowed to marry and adopt the same way heterosexuals should, in 2007 the figure had grown to 61%. I expect Poland will follow the same path, with the same tired arguments used by the opposition, where the only consequence is that gay people in Poland end up having vastly worse lives during the period before they become accepted, so the longer you wait, the more human suffering there is.
If they think same-sex adoption is wrong and that same-sex marriage will lead to same-sex adoption becoming accepted later down the line, I'd say that's a pretty solid argument from their point of view.
|
|
|
On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to).
Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p
edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/
example :
Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination.
I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^
|
On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Show nested quote +Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^
As recently as yesterday EU courts came to the conclusion that US legislation doesn't protect consumers from possibility of government putting its nose into places where it shouldn't. And this is the stuff that is under the legal remits and public scrutiny.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53418898
Essentially US legislation may allow the government agencies to overrule the data protection offered to consumers by various firms. This is pretty much the same issue that was discussed with regards to Huawei even in this page. It's not that they necessarily do it, but they most likely could do it if they wanted to. Now one may have different concerns whether it is the US or Chinese government getting access to this stuff, but in general I'm glad EU legislation and courts are trying to upkeep some level of privacy protections.
|
On July 17 2020 21:31 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^ As recently as yesterday EU courts came to the conclusion that US legislation doesn't protect consumers from possibility of government putting its nose into places where it shouldn't. And this is the stuff that is under the legal remits and public scrutiny. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53418898Essentially US legislation may allow the government agencies to overrule the data protection offered to consumers by various firms. This is pretty much the same issue that was discussed with regards to Huawei even in this page. It's not that they necessarily do it, but they most likely could do it if they wanted to. Now one may have different concerns whether it is the US or Chinese government getting access to this stuff, but in general I'm glad EU legislation and courts are trying to upkeep some level of privacy protections.
It is a little bit different as I believe this is about data hosted physically in the US. This has always been a gray area...
Previous topic was about straight-up hacking and backdooring equipment abroad.
However yes, it fits right in our defiance of an ally that is not really respecting us, and asks that we chastise others for the same things :-D "only WE should have the right to abuse you !!! Please take it with a smile !"
|
On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Show nested quote +Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^
I am a bit confused why your experience with Cisco would cause you to laugh at people being suspicious of The Chinese government possibly doing the same thing?
|
On July 18 2020 02:20 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^ I am a bit confused why your experience with Cisco would cause you to laugh at people being suspicious of The Chinese government possibly doing the same thing?
I am confused, the answer is in the last line of what you quoted ?
I am laughing because these people honestly think the US strong-arming other countries into refusing chinese equipment is to protect us, while they are only protecting their own backdoors, as well as trying to sell their own equipment, and could care less about data protection.
They should be suspicious of China. It's just so naive to place the US on a pedestal there when they are usually the worst actor where spying is mentioned.
|
On July 18 2020 03:10 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2020 02:20 KlaCkoN wrote:On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^ I am a bit confused why your experience with Cisco would cause you to laugh at people being suspicious of The Chinese government possibly doing the same thing? I am confused, the answer is in the last line of what you quoted ? I am laughing because these people honestly think the US strong-arming other countries into refusing chinese equipment is to protect us, while they are only protecting their own backdoors, as well as trying to sell their own equipment, and could care less about data protection. They should be suspicious of China. It's just so naive to place the US on a pedestal there when they are usually the worst actor where spying is mentioned.
(1) I don't see anybody putting the US on a pedestal. We know they've been snooping in on our data since the rumors of Echelon back in the 90s.
(2) I'd still rather have the US snooping on my data than China. I don't think the US gives a shit about people posting memes of Trump. I do think China gives a shit about people posting memes of Xi. Obviously there are plenty of people who *do* have legitimate fears of what the US might be doing with that data. But I still think there are far fewer people who need to worry about the US spying on everything they do than there are who need to be worried about what China might do.
(3) Ideally nobody would be spying on us, but Europe has been truly pathetic about getting their own tech industry going, and by now that boat has well and truly sailed. We now have the awkward choice of whom to sell our data to..
|
On July 18 2020 04:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2020 03:10 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 02:20 KlaCkoN wrote:On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^ I am a bit confused why your experience with Cisco would cause you to laugh at people being suspicious of The Chinese government possibly doing the same thing? I am confused, the answer is in the last line of what you quoted ? I am laughing because these people honestly think the US strong-arming other countries into refusing chinese equipment is to protect us, while they are only protecting their own backdoors, as well as trying to sell their own equipment, and could care less about data protection. They should be suspicious of China. It's just so naive to place the US on a pedestal there when they are usually the worst actor where spying is mentioned. (1) I don't see anybody putting the US on a pedestal. We know they've been snooping in on our data since the rumors of Echelon back in the 90s. (2) I'd still rather have the US snooping on my data than China. I don't think the US gives a shit about people posting memes of Trump. I do think China gives a shit about people posting memes of Xi. Obviously there are plenty of people who *do* have legitimate fears of what the US might be doing with that data. But I still think there are far fewer people who need to worry about the US spying on everything they do than there are who need to be worried about what China might do. (3) Ideally nobody would be spying on us, but Europe has been truly pathetic about getting their own tech industry going, and by now that boat has well and truly sailed. We now have the awkward choice of whom to sell our data to..
I have probably not articulated my post correctly. Users on this forum are more informed than average individuals. Most europeans have no clue about that though, and a good number of americans don't understand why european governments were reluctant about the Huawei ban.
Me being amused with the irony of the situation is usually about the general population's reaction, it was not targeting you or others here in particular. I should have specified it more thoroughly.
Europe were not especially pathetic, though not excellent, but we were also plundered by the US (China doing it too, using other kind of leverages) with questionable maneuvers, for example from the US Department of Justice and General Electric.
https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-american-takeover-of-a-french-national-champion-became-intertwined-in-a-corruption-investigation
Nokia/Alcatel and Ericsonn are both in the top5 of telecommunication equipment manufacturers by revenue for reference... That's not exactly "pathetic", but I'll admit it's harder for tech companies here to acquire critical size when european laws are more restrictive than american ones, and those can offer the services but are not taxed on them.
We were already late to the party, and couldn't catch up.
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me.
Imagine if Europe were to ban Cisco equipment and threaten foreign countries with sanctions if they used that brand, based on.... nothing concrete ?
It's just leveraging your power to favor your own, business as usual.
On July 15 2020 20:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
What a fucking shitshow.
Why were Huawei given the contract in the first place? I don’t work in cyber security but even I know there were legitimate concerns raised on how they handled data and how they could potentially use it.
The kind of competent governance I have grown to expect.
This post for example ? It's a little too conclusive for me. These decisions are based on nothing but influence. Why dismiss your government for wanting to use the best cost-to-efficiency ratio to implement a new technology and then clap when they curb to foreign pressure based on no evidence ?
|
Northern Ireland27466 Posts
On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2020 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2020 03:10 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 02:20 KlaCkoN wrote:On July 17 2020 05:22 Nouar wrote:On July 15 2020 16:35 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2020 12:23 JimmiC wrote:I dont know enough about 5g to understand if the concerns are legitimate that China could use Huawei for espionage or not. But the UK has reversed its decision from January and wont allow any.more Huawei in there 5g network and all of it gone by 2027. The US was certainly putting on pressure and China agressive moves in Hong Kong probably also played a roll in the decision. And given the project dragonfly the Chinese government was doing with Google at least locally there was reason to fear. This will end up costing the UK 2 billion pounds maybe more. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/uk-follows-us-in-banning-huawei-from-5g-network/ar-BB16IDOF?li=AAggpOk Obviously 5g technology can be used to spy on the people sending data through it. Unless you encrypt all your data, and even then they still have metadata. Can they inconspicuously collect that and send anything actionable to China? That becomes a lot trickier. But given the amount of weird hacks and backdoors China has actually demonstrably created in the hardware they export, it makes sense to be cautious. And Huawei is essentially controlled by the Chinese government, so it's not like they can operate independently and say "no" to incorporating backdoors into their tech (the way Apple did when the NSA tried to get them to). Gentlemen, if you only knew what we found in Cisco routers for military contracts.... xD It should be obvious that I cannot go further than that, but it's six of one and half a dozen :-p edit : Oh, forgot Snowden exposed some of it a while ago. You can go to that article, browse down to the "Successful Supply Chain Attacks by France, Germany, and the U.S." section. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/24/computer-supply-chain-attacks/example : Shipments of computer network devices (servers, routers, etc.) being delivered to our targets throughout the world are intercepted. Next, they are redirected to a secret location where Tailored Access Operations/Access Operations (AO – S326) employees, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (S321), enable the installation of beacon implants directly into our targets’ electronic devices. These devices are then re-packaged and placed back into transit to the original destination. I'm usually laughing my ass off when I see people accusing China when everyone does it, even to their allies, and the US being one of the largest suppliers of hardware is very well-positioned ^^ I am a bit confused why your experience with Cisco would cause you to laugh at people being suspicious of The Chinese government possibly doing the same thing? I am confused, the answer is in the last line of what you quoted ? I am laughing because these people honestly think the US strong-arming other countries into refusing chinese equipment is to protect us, while they are only protecting their own backdoors, as well as trying to sell their own equipment, and could care less about data protection. They should be suspicious of China. It's just so naive to place the US on a pedestal there when they are usually the worst actor where spying is mentioned. (1) I don't see anybody putting the US on a pedestal. We know they've been snooping in on our data since the rumors of Echelon back in the 90s. (2) I'd still rather have the US snooping on my data than China. I don't think the US gives a shit about people posting memes of Trump. I do think China gives a shit about people posting memes of Xi. Obviously there are plenty of people who *do* have legitimate fears of what the US might be doing with that data. But I still think there are far fewer people who need to worry about the US spying on everything they do than there are who need to be worried about what China might do. (3) Ideally nobody would be spying on us, but Europe has been truly pathetic about getting their own tech industry going, and by now that boat has well and truly sailed. We now have the awkward choice of whom to sell our data to.. I have probably not articulated my post correctly. Users on this forum are more informed than average individuals. Most europeans have no clue about that though, and a good number of americans don't understand why european governments were reluctant about the Huawei ban. Me being amused with the irony of the situation is usually about the general population's reaction, it was not targeting you or others here in particular. I should have specified it more thoroughly. Europe were not especially pathetic, though not excellent, but we were also plundered by the US (China doing it too, using other kind of leverages) with questionable maneuvers, for example from the US Department of Justice and General Electric. https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-american-takeover-of-a-french-national-champion-became-intertwined-in-a-corruption-investigationNokia/Alcatel and Ericsonn are both in the top5 of telecommunication equipment manufacturers by revenue for reference... That's not exactly "pathetic", but I'll admit it's harder for tech companies here to acquire critical size when european laws are more restrictive than american ones, and those can offer the services but are not taxed on them. We were already late to the party, and couldn't catch up. Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei. Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Imagine if Europe were to ban Cisco equipment and threaten foreign countries with sanctions if they used that brand, based on.... nothing concrete ? It's just leveraging your power to favor your own, business as usual. Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 20:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
What a fucking shitshow.
Why were Huawei given the contract in the first place? I don’t work in cyber security but even I know there were legitimate concerns raised on how they handled data and how they could potentially use it.
The kind of competent governance I have grown to expect. This post for example ? It's a little too conclusive for me. These decisions are based on nothing but influence. Why dismiss your government for wanting to use the best cost-to-efficiency ratio to implement a new technology and then clap when they curb to foreign pressure based on no evidence ?
I’m not clapping at all, it’s the worst of both worlds here.
You are correct on the influence part, does smack of the US pulling rank. But we’re much more susceptible to that influence now because we made the choice to pull away from European and want new trade deals.
So now we’re in a position where we’re paying more and dealing rollout too.
|
Personally I'm far more concerned about the US government spying on people like me than I am China, but I can understand why Europeans would be more concerned by China.
|
Northern Ireland27466 Posts
On July 18 2020 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Personally I'm far more concerned about the US government spying on people like me than I am China, but I can understand why Europeans would be more concerned by China.
I’m more concerned at what people (often ignorantly) volunteer in terms of personal information to tech firms in general. People are shockingly blasé about this.
As for China spying I’m not OK with that but we’re still at a cultural impasse where it’s an economic power but it’s yet to really punch through culturally. It’s influence is still relatively limited and discreet, now.
It’s going to prove extremely problematic down the line where Western migration to China is more common or Chinese companies acquire more Western companies.
Everyone does it to some extent but the scope of what the Chinese deem off limits to hold or discuss is so far beyond what even the US never mind of the rest of the world do.
An argument can be made that the US has done more damage to the rest of the world in the 21st century than China has, one Id probably subscribe to.
The more pertinent worry for me is would you want the norms of China to have the influence and power that the US currently has.
|
On July 18 2020 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2020 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Personally I'm far more concerned about the US government spying on people like me than I am China, but I can understand why Europeans would be more concerned by China. I’m more concerned at what people (often ignorantly) volunteer in terms of personal information to tech firms in general. People are shockingly blasé about this. As for China spying I’m not OK with that but we’re still at a cultural impasse where it’s an economic power but it’s yet to really punch through culturally. It’s influence is still relatively limited and discreet, now. It’s going to prove extremely problematic down the line where Western migration to China is more common or Chinese companies acquire more Western companies. Everyone does it to some extent but the scope of what the Chinese deem off limits to hold or discuss is so far beyond what even the US never mind of the rest of the world do. An argument can be made that the US has done more damage to the rest of the world in the 21st century than China has, one Id probably subscribe to. The more pertinent worry for me is would you want the norms of China to have the influence and power that the US currently has.
Not the Hong Kong capitalist type that have people living in glorified hamster cages, but the communism, yeah.
|
Northern Ireland27466 Posts
On July 18 2020 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2020 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2020 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Personally I'm far more concerned about the US government spying on people like me than I am China, but I can understand why Europeans would be more concerned by China. I’m more concerned at what people (often ignorantly) volunteer in terms of personal information to tech firms in general. People are shockingly blasé about this. As for China spying I’m not OK with that but we’re still at a cultural impasse where it’s an economic power but it’s yet to really punch through culturally. It’s influence is still relatively limited and discreet, now. It’s going to prove extremely problematic down the line where Western migration to China is more common or Chinese companies acquire more Western companies. Everyone does it to some extent but the scope of what the Chinese deem off limits to hold or discuss is so far beyond what even the US never mind of the rest of the world do. An argument can be made that the US has done more damage to the rest of the world in the 21st century than China has, one Id probably subscribe to. The more pertinent worry for me is would you want the norms of China to have the influence and power that the US currently has. Not the Hong Kong capitalist type that have people living in glorified hamster cages, but the communism, yeah.
Well I’d be more ok if China was actually Communist rather than what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
