Huawei Ousted from Associations That Create Global Standards

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, May 24, 2019.

  1. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,418
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    I'm not sure if discrediting the whistleblower is the right tact to take in light of the facts.
    https://theintercept.com/2019/05/29/nsa-sidtoday-surveillance-intelligence/
    But oh well
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  2. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Great, we have no disagreement, maybe you can let me go on this then.
     
  3. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I didn't say that the UK or Canada has followed suite. I said to watch and see what they do.

    Try and follow, the US says there is a problem with China's tech companies, and because of this, the US has banned the use of Chinese tech products in US Government network infrastructure, and is banning the transfer of US tech to China from US businesses. HuaWei can sell to US consumers and businesses, just not if it's going to go into Government Network Infrastructure or be used to support Government Communications.

    That being said, who will want to buy HuaWei or any of the other Chinese Companies' products knowing that they don't support the latest US Tech?

    Now this is the current situation ..... Now we are talking about whether or not the US actions are justified and I have been saying that depending on the source of the information that the US is relying on, they may not show it to many, but the 5-Eyes countries are the most likely so watch what they do. If the don't follow the US on this, then it likely means that the US has no information, or the US has not even shown it to their closest Intel Partners.

    Now we get to address the other issue. Just because other countries are not willing to outright ban Chinese products as an action by their government, it doesn't mean that their own businesses are not going to dump using HueWai and others if they can't support the latest tech out of the US. These governments are not as big as the US and may not see it as necessary to make an overt statement when their businesses can choose for themselves what to do and are perfectly capable of shunning Chinese products all by themselves without making it a political issue.

    Am I being more clear now?
     
    Etherton, IdiotInCharge and GoodBoy like this.
  4. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Wait, no. He started by quoting me, taking issue with something I said, but what he brought up really didn't have anything to do with what I was saying. It was like we were talking about two different things. I brought that up, he doubled down, keeps dragging my into a direction I don't care to go. Now he says he didn't have an issue with what I was saying, that there never was a disagreement.

    And you think this was all me?
     
  5. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Wait...wut?
    Doubled down on what?
    How am I dragging you into any direction? If you don't wish to respond to something, then don't. It's not complicated, Bucko,
    I honestly think you may be the only one who knows what you're even going on about at this point.

    PS: I guess I can see how you got 10k+ posts though.
     
  6. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Here again, the "facts" written by people that do not know what they are talking about.

    These media people who have gotten their hands on all these documents think they understand them when they do not. They see links between things that are not linked. They take words that have very narrowly defined meanings, like collect, target, etc and infer meanings that are not factual. They substitute words for each other improperly and build these large exposes that are factually false while claiming that they prove things that they do not.

    Furthermore, they completely ignore the very simple concept that some people are protected while others are not. They ignore that it is not illegal to incidentally intercept information between US Persons, only to actively collect, database, and analyze. I'll give you an example;
    A voice collector can be searching for someone talking on the radio, roll onto an active frequency and engage a recorder so as not to miss anything, listen awhile and determine that the people talking are probably Americans, and stop the recorder and move on to another frequency. He doesn't have to delete what was intercepted. That bit of conversation will remain on the taps along with all the other conversations that this person intercepts. Later, when the taps go in for translation and transcription, that conversation that was incidentally collected will be ignored, no analysis will be performed on it, no transcripts created from it to be catalogued and databased, etc. And eventually, the tape will be whipped and reused.

    Now this is the old school days although people still do use radios and morse code, etc. Transform this into the modern age of digital communications. Some rules are the same, some a little harder to work with. Conversations are no longer on tapes, they are on data files. Also keep in mind that these rules are based on directives that were required when Ronald Reagan issued EO 12333 which many of these media types seem to think was the document that authorized all this surveillance and although they are not completely wrong, they are seeing it from the wrong angle. The Intelligence Services were already doing the surveillance and there had been abuses, EO 12333 formally set limits, defined who could do such collection and under what authority. EO 12333 did authorize the activities but it also set up the foundation for all the limitations on how things would be done. It was more about formalizing things, because you can't set limits on things you aren't specifically required to be doing. EO 12333 was intended to end the "Wild Wild West" of Intelligence Collection Activity.

    The world has changed since Reagan, and EO 12333 has been changed as well.

    Even veteran Intelligence professionals screw up when it comes to the rules. Do you recall I once said something about William Binney's "Oh Shit !" moment?

    Binney worked for the NSA, he developed some of the software that became the collection system for the bulk meta-data program that Snowden outed along with so much more. The reason Binney got all bent out of shape about that program was because he learned through friends/coworkers that the program had been modified so that it wouldn't "ignore" intercepting data from US Persons. Binney was a cold war vet, he was like me and so many others and believed in the limitations Reagan imposed with EO 12333. Binney believed that this program was violating that Presidential Directive and the individual rules that had been set in place so that intelligence Services don't violate the spirit of that order. So Binney started complaining and he went right up all the official channels and everyone along the way told him the same thing; "Binney, this isn't your work, you are not part of this program, stick to your business."

    Binney felt like they were all blowing him off. But Binney wasn't read onto that program and although I think they should have read him on, explained it all to him, and then told him to shut up and sign his NDA, they didn't. So Binney, being a patriotic professional, went whisttleblower, and got himself in trouble. The guy really went to bat for us. I give him serious props for being a brave and selfless guy. He's almost a hero in my eyes, and he was in Snowden's as well. Snowden idolized him, believed in Binney completely.

    Which brings us back to that "Oh Shit !" moment I talked about earlier. The day that Binney found out that another President, George W. Bush signed a directive specifically authorizing the program Binney was concerned about. A President using authority no less powerful than the authority behind EO 12333 had told the NSA that they were to create and run this program, within the operational limits that he set, vetted by the NSA and WH lawyers. This was what Binney forgot to consider, that maybe someone had changed the rules a little, in a specific case, under specific conditions. And while he ran from oversight office to oversight office being told to drop it over and again, he never considered that maybe .... just maybe ..... he was wrong.

    Of course he destroyed himself over this. He threw away his career, his long earned retirement. Now this is all he has. I'm sure, just like I think they should have told him, he probably feels a little betrayed, that they couldn't see how concerned he was and let him in on the secret. He'd spent his entire adult life protecting secrets. But that's where it is. And this is why, even veteran professionals, can forget how things really work and why. So why would anyone think that they can make sense of a random collection of documents with no understanding of mission, authority, restrictions, etc?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  7. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    You quoted me and said that what I was saying couldn't happen. I told you that I wasn't saying it could happen, you again reiterated why the thing I never said could happen, couldn't happen.

    And you are just as free as I am to accept that, although we were not talking about the same thing, (which is what I said from the beginning), we have now decided to continue on about the irrelevant, and can stop the same as I can.

    Let's see if the pot can stop calling the kettle black.
     
  8. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Jesus, you're dense. Read once again the earlier post. You made no statement in that post as to if or if not anything could happen.
    I think your fundamental issue comes from the fact that you seem to be thinking I replied to something I did not. I commented exactly on what I quoted originally and later underlined and put in bold type for you. Evidently, it still wasn't clear enough. Maybe a neon sign or skywriting would have been better.
    I'll do it again.
    In what I responded to, you didn't say what could or couldn't happen. I imagine you did so in another post that I did not reply to.
    Perhaps I should have removed your name from the original reply because it has nothing to do with you or your opinions. There was no opinion or statement posted in that I replied to.

    Now get off my nuts.
    If you bother replying to this, I'm just going to ignore you. All you've been doing is making me repeat myself because you fail to pay attention and instead just keep on tilting at windmills.
     
  9. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,505
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    No Shit !,, Exactly what I have been trying to tell you.

    My fundamental issue is that You have refused to accept that this is exactly what I have been saying since you first quoted me.

    And that we are both too damned stubborn to just shut up.