[gonvaled]

Perfectly on point.

US companies have now been shown for what they really are: an extension of the US government.

As such those companies can and will be used to make political points and advance US interests.

Caveat emptor: using US technology has big risks.

[simonh]

They're subject to the US government sure, in the same way that Huawei is subject to the Chinese government, which is why the US is so nervous about allowing it's equipment into their critical network infrastructure. It doesn't even matter if Huawei doesn't want to do it, if the Chinese government says jump they will ask how high, as with Google in this case. As with any company issued a lawful instruction by their government, for which there is no clear legal challenge.

Bear in mind the US and China are currently engaged in an espionage war[1]. The US has an active network of informants in the Chinese government, while the Chinese are actively conducting espionage and counter-espionage in the US including stealing commercial secrets and suborning US intelligence operatives to undermine the CIA's Chinese network. Google and Huawei are being caught in a crush between the spy war and the trade war.

EU companies are no different. If Google was a German company and Germany decided to impose trade sanctions on a non-EU country, they would have to comply.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48319058

[gonvaled]

Security considerations have absolutely nothing to do with the Huawei ban. The US has provided no evidence, and has refused the offer by Huawei to collaborate in any investigation.

This is part of the trade war, and the fact that the US is openly lying about the motives of the ban shows how risky the position of US customers have become: there is absolutely no recourse.

And even if the security claims were true (they are not), so what? Why I, an European customer, must be affected by security concerns of a far away country? Why is Huawei in a position to be forced to let down its customers?

Non-US companies must rethink the way they rely on an increasingly isolated and belicose US.

[DoofusOfDeath]

> Security considerations have absolutely nothing to do with the Huawei ban. The US has provided no evidence, and has refused the offer by Huawei to collaborate in any investigation.

I'm not sure we (the general public) have enough information to know either way. There are legitimate reasons for not releasing supporting evidence about counter-espionage operations. It's also entirely believable that the U.S. executive branch (POTUS, CIA, etc.) would lie as you suggest.

[simion314]

The private researchers and companies around the globe could find the backdoors and make them public. But we only see each month more and more issues with US equipment (routers with default passwords set and remote access enabled by mistake or convenience)

[Angostura]

Indeed. UK intelligence is certainly twitchy about Huawei involvement in 5G - and the UK is not marching in lock-step with the US over the chinese trade war.

[pluma]

After the Snowden story about the CISCO routers there's really no reason to assume any given piece of technology from any country isn't potentially manipulated by a government agency.

The idea that Chinese hardware is somehow more troubling in this regard only holds true if you're in the US (and fully trust your government).

[simion314]

>Bear in mind the US and China are currently engaged in an espionage war[1].

But US has spies in all countries, so why is in China an espionage war?

Any idea if US wants a concrete thing? Like if China does X all is fine or is just an economic war and US is trying to weaken China and fix the trading balance ?

[simonh]

Because there are casualties. Dozens of CIA contacts in China have disappeared and a handful of US citizens and even CIA employees have been convicted of spying for China.

[simion314]

I mean if China found some traitors and detained or execute them why is this an espionage war? I am not convinced that this is related with the Huawei sanctions, it must be some economic or political strategy but I don't know what and why now and why with such a pathetic of excuse.

[zamadatix]

While all true it doesn't change the risk (on either side).

[zamadatix]

I think the point is it doesn't matter where the company is located or what it's involved in, if it's proprietary you have no control of being left in the dust or not.

[gonvaled]

The point is that we have allowed US companies to have absolute control of the technology stack. There is no competition (at most between US companies).

There are several ways to mitigate this:

- Open Source. Android itself falls into this category, and it can not be taken away. This is the best way, but let's be realistic here: it is not for everybody.

- Multiple suppliers, from multiple countries, so that we have real competition.

[simion314]

Even if is open source, like a Risc-v CPU manufacturer, you can't just instantly spin a new fac in your country, this takes billions and experts. Open source is good to have but is still not a solution when we are talking about hardware.

[duxup]

>using US technology has big risks

Using technology that might do something you don't want for any reason (government, company decisioms) and that includes any government involvement.... US, China... anyone.

Here we have an article about FOSS and folks still play these weird games where they only mention a specific government.

[weliveindetail]

> US companies have now been shown for what they really are: an extension of the US government.

Interesting. Isn't that exactly what the US is blaming Huawei for?

[gonvaled]

That could very well be the case. But I don't care: Huawei has no power over me. Neither has the Chinese Government.

The US is equally eager (or more) to tamper with the free market, with the small difference that they are in a position to actually do it. From my point of view, the US is a huge problem, and is making my life difficult, but the Chinese are just another producer of cheap and good quality goods.

[Angostura]

> Huawei has no power over me. Neither has the Chinese Government.

Isn't the alleged problem that without restrictions on how Huawei technology is deployed in the U.S, neither may be true.

[gonvaled]

I do not care what happens in the US. I am not in the US. I am not a US citizen. But I am affected by the decisions of what I consider an adversary, that is removing me the option of buying a perfectly functioning product.

I understand why this is happening. I understand the motivations.

What I am saying is that we outside the US should plan accordingly, and reduce our dependency to US technology.

I welcome this event, since I consider it a wake up call. I am convinced the Chinese will lead in making the technology stack a free market again.

[mschuster91]

> US companies have now been shown for what they really are: an extension of the US government.

Not just with US companies. ZTE, Huawei and others are extensions of the Chinese government, Gazprom and the Kreml are interchangeable and the IMF is finance weaponized by the Western economies as a whole.

> Caveat emptor: using US technology has big risks.

Using and especially depending on any technology from a foreign power, especially one that may turn to an adverse power or outright enemy, is a risk. The Western countries have all, over the last decades, shifted most of their production to China - and now are surprised that China has them by the balls, literally, as many countries don't even have people with the skillset required for low level manufacturing.

[tannhaeuser]

Hmm. To me, this isn't about US-vs-CN or other polarizing clickbait. Rather it's about the role that open source and open standards could or should play. Which immediately brings us to: how have we come into this situation that Android is based on Linux, yet it's the largest spyware on the planet? The US decision is entirely based on info warfare and spionage arguments AFAICS. It's silently assumed, even goes without saying, that the Android user base is seen as powerless kettle, and mind slave to whoever controls the tech stack. It's only the question who is in control. Unsettling questions for naive F/OSS zealotry.