Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Education Government Privacy Security United States

MIT Cuts Funding Ties With Huawei, ZTE Citing US National Security Concerns (scmp.com) 102

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

The Protect Our Universities Act, introduced last month by Representative Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, would establish a task force, led by the U.S. Department of Education, to maintain a list of "sensitive" research projects, including those financed by the defense and energy departments and U.S. intelligence agencies. The proposed body would monitor foreign student participation in those projects. Students with past or current Chinese citizenship would not be allowed access to the projects without a waiver from the director of national intelligence. The Act also calls for the intelligence director to create a list of foreign entities that "pose a threat of espionage with respect to sensitive research," and stipulates that Huawei and ZTE be included.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT Cuts Funding Ties With Huawei, ZTE Citing US National Security Concerns More

MIT Cuts Funding Ties With Huawei, ZTE Citing US National Security Concerns

Comments Filter:

  • Saudi Arabia? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gabest ( 852807 ) on Thursday April 04, 2019 @05:04AM (#58382580)
    US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?
    • Can't argue with that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Yeah, we did similar things in WWII. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Sure Saudi has serious issues, but there are bigger fish (first) to fry in the middle east.

    • US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?

      Wow, the very first post is whataboutism [oxforddictionaries.com]. Way to go, /.

    • US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?

      This is an important question (i.e., the relative desirability and danger of these actions), and the answer must necessarily incorporate an understanding of relative motives and benefits. A disinterested third-party (say Vulcans) might view US actions to contain Huawei as unfair or harmful to societal interests in an international scope. Certainly from the viewpoint of Huawei and the Chinese government, such actions would be viewed as unfair and harmful in economic, military, and soft influence ways. How

    • US exports weapons to Saudi Arabia. What could be worse, a few routers?

      F-16 is a great airplane, if the enemy only has Russian planes. US exports to Saudi Arabia are a game-changer for them, because their enemies would usually be flying Russian planes.

      The F-16 is not a threat to the US. We have other planes that the F-16 can't even see! It is not a national security risk at all.

      Routers could be routing any data. Any. There is very little cap on how bad the damage to US interests could be, including National Security.

    • Nuclear technology. Saw on a CBC article today (Apr 4) that the Trump administration was trying to get technology sold over to Saudi Arabia (SA). The breaking news was that SA was found to have a reactor under construction and Trump was just fine with that.

      So the country responsible for funding the organization and supplying most of the people that performed the 9/11 attacks, invades their neighbour, murders people in other countries, wants to get nuclear reactors without signing the non-proliferation treat

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 )

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

      Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration. I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his firs

      • Re:need to know basis (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday April 04, 2019 @08:13AM (#58383060)

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

        Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.

        MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.

        So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.

        Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!

        Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.

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

          Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government is predicated on the fact that Trump and his administration is taking action on something that isn't a conspiracy theory based on rational thought, reliable data and rock hard probable facts. However, this simply flies in the face of everything we know about the Trump administration.

          MIT is definitely not the Trump Administration. And while we don't know details, a lot of Universities are quite capable of doing competent computer investigations.

          So while the shills are taking the usual shitfits any time Huawai is mentioned, this is not the present administration, this is a very competent University, that almost certainly can back up their position.

          Note to the shills - Seriously, your flooding the group with Anti-American propaganda any time Huawai is mentioned is kinda a dead giveaway. No discussion, nothing except 'Murrica BAD!

          Now for the shillls with mod points to bury this post.

          Oooo, I'm a shill now. As for the rest of your commment, no, the Trump admin is not MIT but the Trump admin has a bunch of bats in its belfry about China and Huawei and if they are ready to try and bully the EU over Huawei your take-away from that if you are MIT is: Better cut ties with Huawei before the Trump admin starts gunning for the small fry. MIT just sampled the wind, smelled the stink emanating from a building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington which in turn caused MIT's sense of self-pres

          • Oooo, I'm a shill now.

            Yeah, read though all of the posts. Hardly a word about Huawei, and post after post after post about 'Murica. Textbook shill. Although if you aren't a shill, you are what we call a useful idiot, one who participates in trying to make this about 'murrica, and not one bit about Huawei.

            So anyhow, buy one, and put economic sensitive information on it? Tell your emplopyer that since it a Huawei, you know it is safe.

            Quickly my shilly shill, make it about 'murrica.

            BTW, this is classic textbook deflection

      • Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.

        • Re:need to know basis (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday April 04, 2019 @09:12AM (#58383380)

          Just because you keep saying there isn't proof doesn't mean that its true. These Chinese firms have been caught on more than one occasion red handed already. How many times does it take before you admit they are either letting their masters do what they want or are outright malicious themselves? At this point there doesn't even have to be a new specific exploit or issue, the long history of active attempts by the Chinese to steal our secrets is reason enough to cut them out of any critical systems.

          I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:

          even though we have no proof, i think it's becoming clear there is something to all this...

          Yes, but your unproven assumption that Huawei is spying for the Chinese government...

          ... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?

          • I keep saying ??? I didn't say there was no proof he did:

            Really? So what does this mean?

            I think that if there was a shred of proof that China is using Huawei to spy on the ROW Trump would have tweeted the proof of it before his first intelligence briefing on the subject was over.

            ... and US firms have been caught red handed conducting industrial espionage too, sometimes with the help of the US government and its three letter agencies. China has a shorter history of stealing our secrets than the US does so why, pray tell, should I trust the US any more than the Chinese?

            Whattaboutism. Believe it or not but a lot of us don't care if our government is spying on other governments. We only care if the others do it back to us. Yes that may sound hypocritical or jingoistic but welcome to realpolitik. You try to get as much dirt on the other guy you can and prevent him from doing the same unto you. That's how this game works and always has worked. I want my country and allies to do well and everyone else can kick dirt for all I care. It doesn't mat

      • Orange Man Bad

        • Orange Man Bad

          Precisely! ...and the oranges of my investigations support that conclusion, even the Parson Brown grown in Texas.

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

      Even, and perhaps, especially, with the excessive proliferation of information in the present day, the illusory truth effect [wired.com] is worth consideration.

      YOU ONLY USE 10 percent of your brain. Eating carrots improves your eyesight. Vitamin C cures the common cold. Crime in the United States is at an all-time high. None of those things are true. But the facts don't actually matter: People repeat them so often that you believe them. Welcome to the “illusory truth effect,” a glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Yeah, there is. MIT and the rest don't want their government funding cut because Bozo got his knickers in a twist over Chinese gear.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        Not that "Bozo" has any authority to cut MIT's (Stanford or Berkley) funding, because if he could have, he would have done so already. But don't let facts interfere with your agenda.

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

    • Why would you assumer that there is something to this? Back when Bush was telling the world about WMDs in Iraq they offered no proof but kept telling everyone that they were there. When it came time for the Canadian Parliament to vote on whether or not Canada should join the coalition the PM asked Bush for proof. Even just the party leaders to be shown and we were told that the information was too sensitive. So Canada stayed out of the Iraq invasion.

      Why is this time any different? Now it's Trump telling the

  • Not like the Chinese build islands in the ocean... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04, 2019 @06:56AM (#58382822)

    Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!

    Oh, wait... [nytimes.com]

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

    • Hey, it's not like the Chinese do hyperagressive shit like build islands in the middle of the ocean and then claim international waters as Chinese territory!

      Oh, wait... [nytimes.com]

      Yeah, but 'Murrica something something something.

      Can't win this one my friend, the shills will pounce on you like crocodiles on a wildebeest.

    • Those islands are trivial (if a bit costly) to overcome. The U.S. just has to help the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. build their own islands. If you accept China's claim that artificial islands extend territorial waters, then building one just outside of China's territorial waters (200 nautical miles from China's shore) cuts it in half to 100 nmi (new border is the midway point between two land masses). That allows you to build a new island 100 miles from China's shores. Those new islands cut Chi
  • It sounds like a good time to take our technology sector back in the US. Good riddance Huawei!! Go spy on Russia instead!

  • Queue the ACs (Score:4, Informative)

    by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Thursday April 04, 2019 @08:29AM (#58383146) Journal

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

  • Finally someone takes foreign threats seriously. However, in the end this will become merely widow dressing as hyper-liberal academics - who know better than anyone else of course - will find ways to ignore or circumvent the restrictions. Also, so many exceptions will be granted that the attempt will become laughable. That's the American way.
  • with Taiwan and it would have all been great.
    Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. Nations that like and support US freedom.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close