Huawei Using NSA Scandal To Turn Tables On Accusations of Spying 183
Nerval's Lobster writes "Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecom giant banned from selling to U.S. government agencies due to its alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services, is trying to turn the tables on its accusers by offering itself as a safe haven for customers concerned that the NSA has compromised their own IT vendors. 'We have never been asked to provide access to our technology, or provide any data or information on any citizen or organization to any Government, or their agencies,' Huawei Deputy Chairman Ken Hu said in the introduction to a 52-page white paper on cybersecurity published Oct. 18. Huawei was banned from selling to U.S. government entities and faced barriers to civilian sales following a 2012 report from the U.S. House of Representatives that concluded Huawei's management had not been forthcoming enough to convince committee members to disregard charges it had given Chinese intelligence services backdoors into its secure systems and allowed Chinese intelligence agents to pose as Huawei employees. But the company promises to create test centers where governments and customers can test its products and inspect its services as part of an 'open, transparent and sincere' approach to questions about its alleged ties, according to a statement in the white paper from Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei. Can Huawei actually gain more customers by playing off the Snowden scandal?"
It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:3, Interesting)
The bigger a nationally sponsored corporation becomes, the more obviously it becomes an asset. It's like choosing between corrupt police and the mob.
Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't. This line of reasoning is guaranteed to fool a few morons and nobody else.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
The bigger a nationally sponsored corporation becomes, the more obviously it becomes an asset. It's like choosing between corrupt police and the mob.
Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't. This line of reasoning is guaranteed to fool a few morons and nobody else.
Unfortunately, it leaves those morons with a semi-conscious or unconscious choice between being spied on by A (and possibly others) and being spied on by B (and possibly others). The wise person, on the other hand, merely faces a conscious choice between being spied on by A (and possibly others) and being spied on by B (and possibly others).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. But for some reason I think I have less to worry about (directly) from the Chinese government that from the US government. I would have thought that neither would be interested in me, but the NSA has proven that incorrect.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we outlaw murder? Then there will be no more murders.
Re: (Score:2)
How about an international treaty that bans all forms of cyberspying during peace time ? I'm sure both the US and China would protest against it in the security council but at least the choice between A and B would be conscious for everyone.
And how would that help? They have no problem outrightly violating the constitution that defines what they are, so why would we even think about trusting the government to abide by such a treaty?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and why not show those proof or at least one of them to public to prove the case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit dude, I must be asleep or something bit I have noticed World War II going on around me. So it's either me or you that seems to be a bit mentally adrift. Also their doesn't seem to be a whole bunch of merchant vessel sailing around with nuclear missle's either. It makes a whole lot more sense to deal with the problems we do have than focusing in on the craziness of the military industrial complex and it's insane greed not only fighting imaginary wars but when that fails those psychopaths go out and pur
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Junos a proprietary open source? I guess others could not use it. Am I not right?
Re: (Score:2)
Huawei's software is shit (who needs government backdoors when the on-device management webserver will strcpy the request body into a buffer allocated based on the content-length header?) and could benefit from open-sourcing (of course, the whole thing is just a shitty re-implementation of Cisco software anyhow), but the risk is of malicious stuff in the silicon itself. That's actually not too hard; hardware design is tricky in different ways than software design, but a basic backdoor or espionage function
Re: (Score:2)
and the first group of people that came to America.
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ancient-dna-reveals-humans-years.html [phys.org]
Or, more presently...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449265/Who-Discovered-America--Controversial-historian-Gavin-Menzies-claims-Chinese-reached-New-World-first.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.
This analysis is probably breaks down somewhat for persons of particular interest - their data would be traded. For instance, China might trade your downloading history and identity to the US in return for some dirt on activities of one of the Dalai Lama's acolytes. Neither of these has much direct value to the spy who has it, but it has rather more value to the other. The analysis breaks down more generally for monitored persons in third countries. For instance, if one is in France or Egypt or Brazil, one's data is of interest to both of these protagonists, mostly for trade to third parties in return for other data.
No spying at all (or no sharing of such data with other agencies) would be preferable for most of us.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:5, Funny)
That's an extremely paranoid, borderline tin foil hat, conspiracy theory. Given recent information that has helped people determine the veracity of such wild eyed ideas, there's a very good chance you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
That right there is the worst part of the NSA stuff. You can't dismiss any tinfoil hat conspiracy theory out of hand any more. It's really frustrating. Did Obama have trouble producing a birth certificate because he's really a shape-shifting Reptoid from Mars? ... probably not? But if so, I'd only really be shocked that NASA was in on it, at this point.
Trust in government - trust that they're individually somewhat dishonest for personal gain, but not collectively conspiring against the people - is so va
Re: (Score:3)
The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.
Exactly. Or perhaps your upset with trillion dollar bailouts to the banks while more and more of the middle class slip into poverty so you decide to democratically voice your concerns - only to be picked up the spy dragnet [startpage.com] and harassed, fired, put on no-fly and do-not-employ list's (yes, all these things have already happened to key OWS leaders). How long before your crime may be as simple as expressing your dissatisfaction with our ruling elite on forums such as Slashdots. Going by current trends, I would
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reasons I like slashdot is that I learn stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.
I did not know about startpage.com, thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to show any proof of such ramblings?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a home user, you're not too important to anyone, but China certainly could use your connection as a base to launch attacks from. For businesses, though, China is VERY interested in stealing all the trade secrets they can get their hands on, and passing them to domestic Chinese firms who will be happy to offer competing products at much lower prices. They don't even try to keep that part secret...
Re: (Score:2)
According to this year's annual report on cyber-crime, Verizon found 96 percent of the world's cyber-espionage, stealing trade secrets and intellectual property, came from one country: China.
Security specialists say China is using theft as a national development strategy, pilfering software for wind turbines, fiberoptic cable technology, blueprints for weapons systems like the Joint Strike Fighter.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec13/cybercrime_07-08.html [pbs.org]
Despite all the revelations of NSA spying they are not gathering trade secrets and handing them to American companies. Since neither Cisco nor Huawei is focused on the consumer market your argument takes the wrong perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, yes, NSA is engaged in industrial espionage as well. At least Petrobras has been suggested as a target as well as the known ECHELON incidents. Most likely they're just better at hiding it as they tap directly in to the infrastructure rather than engaging in directed intrusions as often.
And frankly, even as a US corporation I'd say there's cause to worry unless you're the one cosying up with the NSA or your trade secrets might just end up with your competitors who happen to be pals with the right brass.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.
Not to mention that if some stupid design-by-bureaucracy algorithm false positive red flags you, the US government is more likely to do something about it, even if it just means putting you on a no-fly list, but it could also mean dragging you in an interrogating you and then slapping you with a NSL so you can't talk about it just because some government employee wants to cover their ass. You're more out of reach of the Chinese government, so they're not going to try to do anything unless you try to enter
Re: (Score:3)
you might consider the idea of moving to China
The GP isn't saying that the Chinese government is better than the US government. As an American, no matter how critical I am of the US government, I think such ideas are absurd. All the GP is saying is that China doesn't really care about Joe Average American. Why should they? Some powerful or influential people, those with access to important classified or proprietary information, sure, but not Joe Average.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.
The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.
The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.
Heck, snowden should be proof enough about what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, China DOES charge an exit tax.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well of course it does not. But one thing is at least certain, the chance that Huawei hands over everything and everything you give them to the US government is lower than Google doing the same. In return, your chance to be betrayed by Google when it comes to keeping secrets from China is higher.
In other words, you can essentially choose between the Chinese government knowing everything about you or the US government doing so.
And now ponder which country your country is more likely to hand you over to.
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think i can guarantee that Huawei does not hand over anything to the US government, as the US refuses to use their kit :)
Maybe, and this could be a bit of anti-conspiracy theory here, that the reason the US refuses to use their kit is not because of the usual financial protectionism, nor of some vague bull about sending all your packets to china, but simply because they do not send any packets anywhere - even to the NSA, hence the reason they are banned from use. :)
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago you'd have gotten a lot of recommendations for how to decrease your tinfoil hat's pressure on your cranium.
Today, I can't help but consider it an actually plausible reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody in their right mind uses Huawei kit, because it will cheerfully send packets to anybody who asks. DEFCON 20 had an eye-opening presentation on exactly how shitty their code was, at least on their networking equipment. The upshot? There's no need for a government backdoor when the code quality is so abysmal. A pair of hackers were able to find laughably easy (think 80s- or early 90s-grade vulnerabilities, things like strcpy into small buffers and such) remote exploits and the devices have no exploit m
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that their "big infrastructure" stuff is less hopeless than their commercial-grade (note: not consumer-grade) routers. More likely, though, they're simply harder to attack. The holes might be different, and they might be harder to find or to get yourself in a position to exploit them, but they're probably still there. Nobody who publishes expensive, business-oriented products with code that shitty can be trusted to do better elsewhere.
As for being smarter, it's entirely possible that I am bett
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that your country wouldn't instantly bend over and ask kindly for some kind of lube (if it's not too much of a burden) if the US gets in the mood, you're delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
THAT was probably his whole point....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not mutually exclusive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't..
Well, yes.
buuut one of them has been caught doing so....
Re: (Score:2)
Why conquer a country when you can do buisiness with them? Throughout history, the Chinese have not been expansionalist during millenia. That's not what can be said from the European invaders whose offspring make up the current US population.
Re: (Score:2)
So the question becomes, would you rather be spied on by the USA or by the Chinese?
Bizarro world (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine you had told someone 25 years ago that China offers you a safe haven from being spied on by the US and possible repercussions because of it...
Re: (Score:3)
If you lived on a latin american country, that statement would simply make sense at any point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the idea that you can trust Chinese companies to not reveal info to their government is simply laughable.
What info? What is it that they can 'reveal'?
Are you aware of some backdoors in Huawei equipment which allow Huawei (or/and Chinese government) to remotely gain access to equipment + data? Otherwise, what is it that they can 'reveal'?
Share, please. I'd like to know about those backdoors too.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware of some backdoors in Huawei equipment which allow Huawei (or/and Chinese government) to remotely gain access to equipment + data?
I doubt he is. I also doubt he's aware of any specific backdoors in Cisco equipment either. However, we're not talking about a court here. If you think absence of proof is enough reason to trust something, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not say that it's not that way. I only say that 25 years ago such an "offer" would be met only with ridicule and belittlement towards the Chinese company. As you might have noticed, it's not the case today anymore.
And yes, I think it's a big problem that a company hailing from a country where privacy is virtually unheard of can advertise as being a better data haven than a company in the US, citing privacy concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be, though. The revelations of American spying haven't changed China one bit. And it's not like the NSA wouldn't be above finding out about backdoors put in by Chinese companies and using them itself.
Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a Snowden brief a short while ago that showed that one of the major switch vendors had given NSA a direct backdoor into their products. One of the people covering that story said something like, "I can't tell you that it's Cisco, but it's Cisco". The real problem with this situation is that we really don't know which of these things is true.
Back when the USG banned the use of Huawei products, most people assumed that it meant that there was spying functionality in it that had been discovered. However, in light of Bull Run, it's definitely worth asking if what might have happened is that they refused to install spying technology and the USG report was meant as a way to discredit the company and prevent its market penetration.
Re: (Score:3)
Back when the USG banned the use of Huawei products, most people assumed that it meant that there was spying functionality in it that had been discovered.
Uh, no? Over here in Europe, a lot of people assumed it meant the US vendors had had a nice chat with their government, complaining about the cheaper competition and promising campaign contributions.
Not that we weren't afraid of chinese backdoors. I was in the telco industry back then and the discussions were fierce and not exactly short about whether or not to use their stuff. But the US banning them just as they were gaining market share like crazy? That was such an obvious protectionist move.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that it is NOT laden with backdoors? Really?
maybe Huawei was banned because (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the firmware was so buggy the NSA got tired of having to patch it for every update release.
Re:maybe Huawei was banned because (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps, but I still count on the saying: "A thief thinks every man steals".
The US assumes there are backdoors in Chinese equipment because they themselves put backdoors in all American equipment.
Doubtful Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an I.T. manager for a non-western company that has non-western defense contracts, one of those sort of conglomerates that does every activity under the sun. I doubt their ploy will actually work, we don't trust the US or the Chinese. It's a matter of "pick your poison". Still, anyone foolish enough to buy Huawei (Their firmware universally sucks, from modems to enterprise/service-level network and backhaul equipment) might be foolish enough to believe they're safer. In reality though, you're more at risk from the security exploits from Huawei's lazy half-assed programmers. I fear their coders more than any possible shadowy relationships.
And yet, there are hundreds of massive networks having Huawei equipment in core network. Imagine that, their networks actually still run very well, but of course their "firmware" sucks line is certainly very convincing.
You probably haven't even seen a Huawei enterprise switch.
Re:Doubtful Tactic (Score:4, Interesting)
we don't trust the US or the Chinese
Don't blame you. As an American, I also don't trust either.
you're more at risk from the security exploits from Huawei's lazy half-assed programmers
At least when you find a backdoor in Cisco products, you know it was meant to be a backdoor.
As an American I'd like to believe the Huawei programmers are incompetent. OTOH it would be very clever to disguise a backdoor as a bug, or turn a bug into a backdoor. Hold it, Microsoft/NSA has already used the latter approach. Damn Chinese just copy our ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
DEFCON 20: Hacking Redacted Routers [youtube.com]
Huawei has so many bugs that I don't buy anything other than incompetence.
I've linked to the conclusion of that video so you can see a nice list of how bad they are.
Re: (Score:2)
drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Huawei chairman,
open source all of your drivers and firmware, then we'll be forced to agree that your equipment is safe for use.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly :)
while it would not provide full confidence (nothing ever can, reflections on trusting trust), fully opensourcing all code that runs on their hardware would be the only way to inspire trusting them. current initiative is kinda aimed at some governments (and maybe large companies), but the barrier to entry is insanely high (individual researchers or any random person can't participate)
Re:drivers (Score:5, Funny)
Dear gbjbaanb,
We will gladly do so... as soon as you also ask the following competitors to do the same: :
- Juniper Networks
- Cisco
- 3Com
- Teledata Networks
- Netgear
- Alcatel-Lucent
-
After all, the back doors we have in our switches are the same back doors we inherited from their code when we stole it a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, the back doors we have in our switches are the same back doors we inherited from their code when we stole it a few years ago.
At least American technology is still ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Huawei chairman,
open source all of your drivers and firmware, then we'll be forced to agree that your equipment is safe for use.
I guess you don't use Cisco equipment either.
What do you use, actually?
(let me guess - you run m0n0wall on Soekris, right?)
Re:drivers (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.
First, having the source code doesn't tell you the binary running on the device was actually built from the source code you have in your hands.
Second, even if you validate the build chain, you don't know what the compiler, linker and other parts of the toolchain have inserted. This is really, really old knowledge, we're talking at least 30 years.
Third, even if you are sure about the software, you still don't know if there's trickery in the hardware.
You're certainly better off if you have the source code, but don't ever think that alone solves anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In fact, if I recall a story a few years back correctly, the main concern was not about the firmware but about backdoors built into the silicon. Even if they turned over their HDL files (something no hardware vendor would do), the same problem exists there that it does for software: short of uncapping the chips and examining them in impossible detail, there's no way to know that there wasn't a backdoor inserted into the chip design later in the synthesis (compilation) or manufacturing process anyho
Re: (Score:2)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they can. In fact, I suspect they already have.
One of the Cisco et al. selling points was "you can trust us with your data, can you trust Huawei ?" Now that is gone. Loosing a selling point like that, in a competitive market, means that sales will go to the companies it was directed against.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you can trust Cisco with your data, at least in the US. Why build backdoors into the equipment when service providers give the NSA open access anyway. It'd be like getting lock picks when they'll just open the door for you.
Bias and negative wording (Score:3)
There is no point in asking Huawei for backdoors (Score:2)
There is little to no effective difference between an intentional backdoor and a backdoor created by incompetence and shoddy workmanship. Huawei has code quality problems it still needs to work thru.
I have no doubt as the company matures it is and will do much better.
Water Gap (Score:2)
I guess Huawei will start marketing the advantage of their "Water Gap".
"Our jack-booted thugs are water-gaped from your USA facility, while the same cannot be said of our competitors."
Re: (Score:2)
We have a new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling the truth about the US is seen as trolling by the plebs :) you should know that in order to keep good kharma you have to wave the flag and advocate Linux :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? If you are offended by the fact that the population of other western countries starts to see the US as enemy rather than ally, then you whould thank the actions of your government for that. We thank your grandparents for kicking the Germans out in WW2 and your parents for keeping the Russians out during the cold war but that doesn't mean you can do anything you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you from that had the US kick out the Germans? I am European so I remember that the British and the Russians did far more and that the Americans turned up late as usual with the beer and pizza. If you had actually spoken to people who fought you would have heard them tell you the the yanks were a liability as they were green. They ran from the fight and did not defend their allies. The main thing that they were good at was taking credit for what everyone else had done. They were a minority at
Re: (Score:2)
We came in late, but provided large support prior to our being brought in (including sending massive supplies to you and guarding them ourselves; we also sent in large amount of private fighters).
But, your statement reminds me of a saying: 'Once a liar, always a liar'.
Re: (Score:2)
'Once a liar, always a liar'.
Lovely quote for someone defending the idea of US help. The US sold supplies to both sides until Germany declared war on the US and even after that the US continued to supply Germany through 3rd parties. Britain on the other hand did not charge for the help that it gave to its allies. The US, as always, saw the war as a way to get rich. That is very different from the picture painted by people like GW who spoke about the US (he said 'America' but Canada did offer genuine he
Re: (Score:2)
Now, you may not like hearing this, but your gov, as well as the rest, spy on each others. The FVEY (5 eye) esp. spy on each other. We know it. Why do we allow it? Because the group that does for each of the nations, are APOL
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno why this was labelled troll. If I had mod points I would mod up rather than down. I guess the mods are just not feeling terribly objective today.
Re: (Score:2)
The good behavior of Chinese government, as perceived by European Slashdotters for instance, is more a reflection of the current limits of China's geopolitical reach. If you were to ask people in Southeast Asia which country meddles more in their nation's affairs, China may very well edge out the USA. This is reflected by the enthusiasm in welcoming the US into ASEAN dialogue by China's neighbors. In fact, I'm quite sure if the question were posed to Filipinos, Singaporeans, Burmese, etc, you would find an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The American Slashdotters actually seem to me more objective than their European counterparts. If you would look at the history of political discussion on this site, self-criticism is far far more likely to come from an American than from a European. You will also find that whataboutism [wikipedia.org] is heavily relied upon in comments to articles about non-US countries, especially concerning Europe, whereas for stories about the US that sort of excuse-making is hardly ever seen. It leaves the sense that Americans actuall
Re: (Score:2)
At least the Chinese don't try to invade countries throughout the world, they were content with Tibet.
Give 'em time. Wars are expensive, so they've been developing their economy. They've been pretty belligerent about various islands, big and small.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You HAVE to live in either America or Europe. You obviously have no knowledge about Asia.
Why do you think that vietnam is cuddlying up with USA these days? Why do you think that EVERY ASIAN NATION except China, North Korea, and sometimes Russia wants USA in on meetings for those areas?
What do they know that an ignorant person like you does not know?
Perhaps they know that China has invaded ALL of asia over and over. Perhaps they know that China threatens just about all of them NOW, and s
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that vietnam is cuddlying up with USA these days? Why do you think that EVERY ASIAN NATION except China, North Korea, and sometimes Russia wants USA in on meetings for those areas?
What do they know that an ignorant person like you does not know?
Hmmm... "If we don't play nice with the USA, if we don't let them station troops in our country, they will label us an axis of evil and try to invade us."
Perhaps they know that China has invaded ALL of asia over and over.
Hahahahaha.... I'm sure the Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia etc. can tell you all about the Chinese invasion that never happened. I'll tell you something you don't know. China did invade Japan a few times. The last time it happened, China was controlled by the Mongols who were Genghis Khan's direct descendants. Unless "ALL of Asia" mean
Re: (Score:2)
I would really like to know which state of the US you are from since you have reached a level of stupidity I haven't seen in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the US paid no attention to the Geneva convention. The Vietnam War need never have happened. That would probably have prevented the Pot Pol horror. (I know, it's a different country. but violence tends to spread.)
Still, it's true. You need to be more afraid of your neighbors than of someone who lives a hundred miles away. And it's been awhile since the US has invaded either Mexico or Canada. But I'm sure they both remember it unhappily, even though in the US it's mainly forgotten.
Unfortunately,
Re: (Score:2)
Because, in all honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.
HTH HAND [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, let's look at the list of Chinese invasions in the past century.
1910 invasion of Tibet by China
1950 - 1951 invasion of Tibet by China
Tibet
1962 invasion of India by China
Border conflict with India
1974 invasion of Paracel Islands by China
Skirmish with Vietnam.
1979 invasion of Northern Vietnam by China
Vietnam
1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China
Skirmish with Vietnam
So, Tibet, India and Vietnam. The latter two are mostly border conflicts. The 1979 war with Vietnam resulted in China withdrawing voluntarily. Let's look again at the OP's "trollish" statement:
At least the Chinese don't try to invade countries throughout the world, they were content with Tibet
And the comment saying China has invaded "ALL of asia" is now ranked +4 Interesting? Let's look at what invading "ALL of asia" is like:
1944 invasion of East Asia by Japan
1943 invasion of Gilberts & Marshall Islands by Japan
1943 invasion of Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands by Japan
1942 invasion of Alaska by Japan
1942 invasion of Indonesia by Japan
1942 invasion of New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea and Singapore by Japan
1942 invasion of Solomon Islands by Japan
1941 invasion of Netherlands East Indies, Guam and Borneo by Japan
1941 invasion of Wake Island, Hong Kong and Philippines by Japan
1941 invasion of Malaya and Thailand by Japan
1941 invasion of Southern French Indochina by Japan
1941 invasion of Southern Vietnam by Japan
1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Spratly Islands by Japan
1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Paracel Islands by Japan
1938 invasion of the Soviet Union by Japan
1937 invasion of China by Japan
1931 invasion of Chinese Manchuria by Japan
1914 invasion of Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands by Japan
1914 invasion of German Tsingtao in China by Japan and the United Kingdom
1914 invasion of German Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands and Marshall Islands by Japan
1910 invasion of Korea by Japan
1904 invasion of Russia by Japan
I'm not sure which alternative univ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I download them for personal (and family) use, I don't sell them. Certainly not in China, where I don't live. That's OK with the Chineze, they don't care, and although it is even legal where I live the (The Netherlands) US is still pushing my country to change those laws. I downloaded even some Chineze films (although they were spoken in English, my Chineze is not that good).
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, the Chinese gov. will try you and then shoot you for selling Chinese copyrighted items in China. What they do not care about is when OTHER's copyrighted material is sold. Just like they allow bath salts and other illegal drugs to be exported from China, they will execute you (i.e. shoot you), if you are caught selling it there.
Re:I trust China more than the USA. (Score:4, Interesting)
Banned from USA, on instant-arrest watchlist at every airport, etc. You used to be cool USA. I actually used to respect NSA. Not now. There is doing things "illegally" within reason, then there is just straight-up abusive levels of illegality that they are presently doing. Now that China are finally growing up, I actually respect them far more.
Why? Because at least they never claimed to be the land of the free? However bad the US is, China is worse (or if not, they're working on the tech). It's just that I hold my own country to a higher standard.
People think China is potentially some bastion of openness because it's better than when Mao ran the show. That's a pretty low bar. And heck, the Tiananmen square massacre was 24 years ago. They've changed so much - might as well be talking about the Qin dynasty, right?
If only they got that whole censorship nonsense away.
If only the Chinese government wasn't the Chinese government.
China would benefit hugely by opening up more since they are a huge influence in many markets.
The same is true of the US, and we've actually had experience doing that. It's just that things have been retrograde for the last decade or so.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Because asking Huawei to build these hooks into their equipment would have tipped the Chinese off about the NSA's capabilities. And they would have an idea where and how all the backdoors in other vendors' systems (in use in the USA) were implemented and how to utilize them.