Huawei Sues the US In Pushback Against Security Risk Claims (latimes.com) 118
hackingbear writes: A suit filed by Huawei in Texas, where an American subsidy is located, this week is the latest maneuver in the Chinese telecommunications giant's global offensive against American pressure and persistent criticisms that it poses a national security risk. The company's lawsuit contends that the law which bans Huawei equipment without evidence and trial is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. also argues that Huawei poses an unacceptable security risk due to its tie with the Chinese government, though a 2003 due diligence by Motorola in a merger talk found Huawei was independent (Warning: source paywalled) of Chinese government or military (the merger failed after Motorola board thought the $7.5 billion price tag for Huawei was too high.) In the lawsuit announcement, Huawei Chairman Guo Ping also accused U.S. agencies of hacking Huawei servers and stealing emails and source code. In a similar case, China's Sanyi sued the Obama administration and forced CFIUS to determine that the the company's acquisitions "have not raised national security objections."
Lol (Score:2, Funny)
Good luck suing the US in Texas, Chinese company.
Re: (Score:1)
Why, is the USA not a country of law and justice ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's so laughable, good luck Chi-Coms (Score:1, Funny)
In US Court, invoking the US Constitution.... after all that bluster and evading US law and the shell corporation they used so transparently obvious... are they asking for a public undressing or what? Discovery requests, inbound.
The public is about to see Huawei's Chi-Com fupa in a few months.
Re: It's so laughable, good luck Chi-Coms (Score:1)
So, you say, in the US judicial system the case will not be decided on the merits, but on the prejudice?
Well, that's what Huawei has been telling us is happening, good that you illustrate it with your racist bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They should push for source code inspection (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean Cisco aren't exactly a company I want to defend when it comes to that, but if you think Huawei is better than Cisco, whoooboy are you mistaken!
It's like being in a prison courtyard and the second biggest bad dude there (Cisco) points out that the actual threat to everyone there is the biggest bad dude (Huawei). They are both not to be trusted and if you have to trust one more than the other, right now it isn't Huawei.
The real kicker about it is that Huawei are better at doing what is tradjtionally th
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you have more trust in the one that has proof of wrongdoing than in the one that has the most eyes on it of any company in the history of mankind, and where none of those eyes have managed to turn up a single thing?
Dead in the water. (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-citizens have human rights, but not constitutional rights. SCOTUS has already decided that.
No one has the inalienable right to do business in the US.
Any one's constitutional rights can be suspended for public safety or national security.
Huawei should be fined for wasting the court's time and their lawyers sanctioned.
Re: (Score:3)
If a case never even should have been filed, typically it is only the lawyer that gets penalized, not the client.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. An American company has constitution rights, whether its owned by US or foreign citizen / company.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be lazy. don't be ignorant. Look it up and don't spread misinformation [foxnews.com], dude!
BTW all rights anyone can have, including "human rights", only exist because they are covered by some constitution clauses.
Only foreigners physically outside of a country and foreign companies not registered in the country do not have constitution rights, else no foreigner or foreign company would dare to come to the US.
Wow, 0/4 (Score:2, Insightful)
You are 0% correct.
Constitutional rights protect everyone on US soil. One justice disagrees with that (Thomas), and it's news because it's not normal.
All US citizens do, for sure. And, under international treaties and organizations (e.g. the WTO), so do the ones from many other countries.
Citation desp
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they don't have the right to vote, because the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) explicitly only vests that right to citizens. There are a couple of times the constitution does that, but it's explicit each time. Note, the 2nd amendment is not one of those cases. Even illegal immigrants (7th circuit ruled in 2015) have 2nd amendment rights.
Again, you're con
Re: (Score:2)
WTO doesn't grant companies the right to do business here. That's nonsense. If that was true, American businesses could go to China and open local branches. Good luck with that.
WTO says you have to treat imports the same regardless of which country they're from. That doesn't mean that foreign companies can also come here and be the importers.
The reason foreign businesses can do business in the US so easily is merely because of US policy, not because of "rights."
Re: (Score:2)
The WTO is not symmetric, and for some reason China still benefits from many exceptions to the rules allowing "developing nations" to protect their local companies. The WTO isn't just concerned with material goods anymore, poking their noses into flows of capital, services and intellectual property.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fair to say the American nation isn't the envy of the World it once used to be, but the fact the Chinese can sue in American courts with a decent chance to win still says a lot about the differences between the two juggernaut nations.
“Congress acted unconstitutionally as judge, jury and executioner,” Huawei executive Guo Ping said Thursday after announcing the court action.
Guo Ping's evidently been binge-watching some Mandarin-dubbed spaghetti westerns.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fair to say the American nation isn't the envy of the World it once used to be, but the fact the Chinese can sue in American courts with a decent chance to win still says a lot about the differences between the two juggernaut nations.
(...bold mine...)
Looked at the situation through another lens...
Whereas one nation has sought to assert its will onto others, it's found one that will not simply sit back and watch. Huawei is fighting back.
In addition, of the two juggernaut nations, one has had a proven MO of fomenting chaos [wikipedia.org] (read regime change) in distant lands, the other country has mostly followed bilateral cooperation even though some experts have seen this as a form of imperialism.
Think about that!
Re: (Score:2)
Looked at the situation through another lens...
Is that lens labeled "50 Cent Army"? ;)
Re: I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:2)
In addition, of the two juggernaut nations, one has had a proven MO of fomenting chaos (read regime change) in distant lands, the other country has mostly followed bilateral cooperation even though some experts have seen this as a form of imperialism.
Ah, another millennial who thinks history started in the last few decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:2)
I'll try to remember that. Thanks.
and that nationalism started Nazi Germany china (Score:2)
and that nationalism started Nazi Germany and china is doing stuff that the Nazis did.
Re: (Score:3)
the fact the Chinese can sue in American courts with a decent chance to win still says a lot about the differences between the two juggernaut nations.
The differences only exist [finnegan.com] in [nytimes.com] your brain [lexology.com], washed over by American propaganda [quora.com].
Re: I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm confused ... are you ignoring the fact that the current case is one of a Chinese company suing the US government, while your example cases are ones of foreign companies suing Chinese companies? Or are you just implicitly acknowledging that Chinese companies are in fact an extension of their government, and, as such, assuming that suing a Chinese company is equivalent to suing their government?
Re: (Score:2)
1. the GP talked about just "suing in American court" and not specifically "suing US government in American court"
2. if you haven't heard of those in the biased American media, doesn't mean they don't exist [hexun.com]. (Of course, given you speak on China without knowing much, you obviously don't actually read in Chinese and need some help from online translation.) (And I'm claiming these cases are frequent, but GP claimed there is none. They are rare maybe because foreign companies are actually quite happy in China [iam-media.com].)
Re: I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:2)
Heh. What delicious irony; a chinaman talking about "biased american media".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it counts as ironic when it is literally illegal for them to say anything else when they talk about it; they certainly aren't allowed to invert it and say the opposite, if that is what they believe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I feel a touch of nationalism coming on (Score:1)
Some of the most patriotic Americans are those who have most recently become citizens. They left shitty countries and people in them behind to seek out better futures in the US. Try again.
Five yard penalty for wasting everyone's time. Repeat first down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fair to say the American nation isn't the envy of the World it once used to be, but the fact the Chinese can sue in American courts with a decent chance to win still says a lot about the differences between the two juggernaut nations.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have several friends who are. I'm American by the way. Let's just say I think Huawei's chance of winning is a lot lower than you do.
Trade war in disguise... (Score:2)
...though having a viewport into the net is also something that all governments want to keep. We're all expecting naughtiness on the internet and are practicing "safe sex" though eh?
Laughed out of court (Score:5, Insightful)
The company's lawsuit contends that the law which bans Huawei equipment without evidence and trial is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Anyone that's even heard of a clue, let alone has half of one, knows that national security is a valid and perfectly constitutional reason to prohibit government agencies from purchasing equipment or services from a foreign actor.
They are challenging John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA 2019) [wikipedia.org], specifically Section 889 [congress.gov].
Nothing in the law prevent private businesses from buying Huawei equipment but doing so could effectively lock them out of doing business with the federal government. It's just like the Kaspersky Anti-Virus situation where people a free to use it but it's a big no-no for the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is a perfectly valid and constitutional reason as long as that REALLY is the reason.
Wrong. The Court is not permitted to substitute their own judgment about what the reason "really" is.
When Congress grants the Executive the right to make some decision based on National Security, then the Court has to balance the Rights of Congress against the Rights of the Executive. So in that type of situation, which is more common, the Court has to consider not only the discretion granted by Congress, but also if it was exercised reasonably. That standard is easy to meet, unless the Executive went in th
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything? Even if it's not a ban on private business use, businesses are going to heed that message, especially if they want government contracts.
Ping is right, if there is no oversight or evidence required then the government is out of control and the normal system of checks and balances has failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything?
Not really because they are only banning it for government use. As long as I'm free to make my own mistakes, it's all good.
Ping is right, if there is no oversight or evidence required then the government is out of control and the normal system of checks and balances has failed.
No, not really because A) the government is only setting rules for the government (not the people) and B) two branches of government (Executive and Legislative) have cooperated to create this ban.
Ping is just trying to have it both ways, knows he can't and is muddying the waters as much as possible so that useful idiots like you won't recognize this is the government acting properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it concern you that the government can just say "national security concerns" and ban pretty much anything? Even if it's not a ban on private business use, businesses are going to heed that message, especially if they want government contracts.
Nope. As an American, possessing Free Speech, if the Government banned use of my equipment by Government I'd simply use it in a marketing campaign and wallow in increased sales.
If it hurts sales, it is because they're a foreign company, controlled by a largely-hostile foreign government, who positions themselves as a political and military rival of the US. That's normal. It is the US Government's job to warn us about that sort of threat, so as a side-effect of their spending decision, it is entirely within
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution is for US citizens and US companies. They would like to expand the reach to China-owned companies doing business here. Sure. Right after they stop targeting US technology, secrets and businesses. This law suit isn't going anywhere, even in the state of Texas. This a a big waste of money and time.
Re: (Score:3)
Research the Act of 1871. The UNITED STATES (all caps, no "of America") is a federal municipal corporation that own D.C. and is the defacto government.
/Facepalm
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 served only to incorporate (ie. bring together) the cities of Washington and Georgetown, as well as the surrounding areas, into a single entity-the District of Columbia-for local governmental purposes. It had and has no bearing outside of DC, nor did it create a corporation governing all of the territorial US. There is not a second Constitution. Next you're going to say that because flags in courts have gold fringe it makes them maritime courts and in
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious! Thanks Ivan for sharing the results of your afternoon with Google Translate.
I hope it was as much fun to write as it was to laugh at.
A simple, common word such "incorporate" can be so hilarious when misunderstood! Presumably your native tongue lacks Latin roots, so it didn't occur to you that the root translates to "body" and to "incorporate" means to give something a body. If you had that insight, you'd expect it to have a wide variety of contextual meanings. But if you don't know about Latin ro
Huawei: The story of a controversial company (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Huawei [bbc.co.uk]
Interesting article. Here's some snippets:
"The African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa is a shiny spaceship-like structure that glistens in the afternoon sun.
In 2006, Beijing pledged $200m to build the headquarters. Completed in 2012, everything was custom-built by the Chinese - including a state-of-the-art computer system.
But in January 2018, French newspaper Le Monde Afrique dropped a bombshell.
It reported that the AU’s computer system had been co
At least the Chinese gave them the building (Score:2)
IIRC the Chinese bought and refurbished a Boeing for the Chinese president to use once. Then they found it was littered with bugs planted by US agents.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another later story on that by a more credible source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change the fact that the US bugged the hell out of it. All the superpowers and wannabe superpowers do this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change the fact that the US bugged the hell out of it. All the superpowers and wannabe superpowers do this shit.
Which certainly does not imply that we should trust Huawei/China with our critical infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of spies and spying does not seem to in any way suggest that concerns about spying are unfounded, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not suggesting that at all. Just saying that, as someone outside both the US and China, I don't trust any of these cunts.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks but I'll stick to using LG Samsung or Sony hardware for personal use. I don't like the idea of my life being sifted through by the Chinese. My company doesn't allow ZTE or other Chinese phones to be given out for corporate use, ether. Secrets are best kept secret.