All governments spy on each other, and they do whatever is necessary for their spying needs, the US, European nations as well as the Chinese. And I bet this includes exploiting Huawei/Cisco/Nokia/Motorolla hardware. Only difference is in this case for Germany: The US is more trusted than the Chinese. Thus the US/Europe get more leeway in these hardware purchases.
There is a general alignment of Western intelligence agencies as a cooperative group against the antagonism of China (and Russia, NK, etc)
It isn't just "everybody spies" - it's "we are actively engaged in an adversarial relationship together against this other group"
The article is about Germany.
Indeed - and many German citizens who are interested in such topics find this concerning exactly because of Five Eyes.
My comment that Germany is not part of Five Eyes
refers to its grandparent
which I requote here:
"Western governments have historically been allied with and have had intelligence sharing and cooperation arrangements with the U.S.
It isn't just "everybody spies" - it's "we are actively engaged in an adversarial relationship together against this other group"".
For understanding Germany, you always have to keep in mind that there is a deep ditch between the "political interests" of the government and the "political interests" of many citizens (that is also the reason why you will harly hear any German citizens speaking of "unsere Regierung" (our government), but of "die Regierung" (the government)).
The government is rather attached to the USA (that is why of course nothing happened after the NSA tapped Merkel's phone), while many citizens are deeply sceptical of it, be it for
- industrial espionage that was done on Enercon by the USA (see https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/960011/trans-atlant...)
- very different beliefs on data privacy
- the Snowden leaks
- Donald Trump
it's really a shame that with both 4g and 5g standards bodies did not already work on this.
Only some, though. The metadata will still be there to be collected, which I understand is more valuable than you'd assume on first glance.
If it weren't for these political considerations, expanding 3G coverage instead would be cheaper and likely good enough for most applications. Especially the self driving car stuff where 5G is always touted as necessary: if it can't work without constant network connection, it's not safe enough to be deployed on the streets.
My last sentence was was /s, obviously.
> Especially the self driving car stuff where 5G is always touted as necessary:
Germany must the only country where the development of 5G is not motivated by providing better connectivity to the citizens, but by.... the interests of automotive industry. The oligopoly is strong.
Tools in this context sounds a lot like:
- I'll have my favored vendor draft the RFB
- Have my favored vendor write the only RFP that matches the RFB
- pretend there is competition.
This is probably the US telling Germany what to do. They're the junior partner anyway. Giving China access to large parts of their telco infrastructure isn't something either country wants to do. I can understand why, but just saying that probably won't fly with the WTO
I’m not sure if they’ve all changed their plans, but at least one or two of them have already made this choice and have used them in the past. Never heard of any problems in delivering.
Doesn't every telecom company cooperate with its home government? I see a lot of doubt cast towards Huawei's behavior, but how about some evidence?
How can 'tools' with the effect of a ban be legal, when a ban isn't?
This is more common the other way around, where a government wants a specific company to do a job, but is required to issue a public call for bids. In that case the requirements are just written exactly for that specific company.
But must guess is that Germany will be very careful and still let Huawei have a footprint in the country because Germany is a heavy investor in China for decades, and Huawei actually moved their EU HQ from the UK to Germany. They will want to stay on good enough terms with China.
This can easily backfire with tech companies being banned and excluded from markets on frivolous grounds without due process in the same way.
It cannot just be some can undermine competition and limit access to markets with scaremongering and wild allegations. If free markets and competition are mere political constructs to benefit a few then the whole system is effectively over.
Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is. Especially regarding politics and nutrition. If your comment matches a certain pattern, you get downvoted or upvoted by certain people who never give any facts but who might insult you instead.
Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo. Good moderators will downvote trollish comments, or flamebait, or comments that lead in other unproductive or uninteresting directions, regardless of the "opinions or facts" it contains.
Here are some facts against the USA and European politicians and secret services and their collusion:
Quote: The spying row has also been stirred by allegations that Merkel’s staff gave the German BND foreign intelligence agency a green light to help the NSA spy on European firms and officials.
Title: German intelligence employee arrested on suspicion of spying for US on Bundestag NSA committee
Quote: The Belgacom breach sparked outrage in Europe’s political institutions and made global headlines. But Belgium’s effort to identify the spies responsible and hold them accountable faced roadblocks at almost every turn. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, refused to assist. Prosecutors overseeing the case feared triggering a major diplomatic dispute and were reluctant to pursue it aggressively. Meanwhile, British spies tried to destroy the evidence. “We wanted to show that as a small country, we would not be bullied,” said a source close to the investigation. “But we were fighting against two big cyberarmies from the U.K. and the U.S. We knew we could never win this.”
Quote: The consultant Florian Kling, formerly a cyber officer and public relations expert for the German Armed Forces, told Stoltenberg on Twitter : "Explain why the civil network is important to NATO, how NATO / US would communicate through these channels "It's not a military or landline core, and should not I trust our crypto capabilities?" Other military officials also see this as follows: "Our intelligence services work together excellently - classified information is guaranteed not to be transported via a 4G or 5G network, but rather in completely different ways," said Patrick Sensburg on Deutschlandradio . The CDU deputy and lieutenant colonel of the reserve sits in the intelligence committee Parlamentarisches Kontrollgremium (PKGr). "This is about the exercise of economic power," emphasized Professor Sensburg.
>> Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo.
> What are the facts against Huawei ? Do you have any ?
What about Huawei? I was talking about ElBarto's comment, as is everyone in this entire thread. He was just scolded by a mod about his conduct, so I don't think my take was too far off.
But it was related to the boycott of Huawei. It was reasonable like all other good critical comments that were downvoted to a grey font color at that time. I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.
Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.
> I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.
There was something wrong with it, but you didn't understand it. That's fine, but understand that things you can't perceive still exist. Lots of people found fault with it, including a mod. Don't you think that could mean something actually was wrong with it?
However, if you've already forgotten it, maybe we should drop it?
> But it was related to the boycott of Huawei.
Barely and unproductively, as I outlined above.
> Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.
It's common practice here to downvote comments that complain about downvotes, because they don't actually add to the discussion. Complaining about voting is frowned upon.
I answered a question.
Downvoting without giving a reason is lazy selfish cowardly trolling without contributing anything useful.
A downvote is even worse than an insult because:
- an insult shows the mindset and the stupidity of the insulting person.
- as intended, a downvote leads to deranking of the comment and thus "eradication" for many other readers who do not care to read downvoted comments or the last comments of many.
And you guys are the ones taking things in unproductive directions by refusing to address or discuss the point of my initial comment (and you even go as far as pretending not to understand the point or to misrepresent it), which is American influence over its allies.
What is this conversation supposed to be? Is it a play on lines from a movie or something? Who is it meant to be between? Who does the first speaker represent? What about the second? What is the context of the conversation? Why does that conversation relfect something true about the real-world situation? Is the conversation meant to be some kind of metaphor?
Because you know the point you're trying to make, the meaning of your comment is clear to you. But to someone who doesn't start out knowing what that point is meant to be, they don't have anything to go on.
Maybe yours are.
German spy agencies are known to work with/for US intelligence without any hesitations. There was little or rather no consequences at all following the disclosures made by Snowden, although even chancellor Merkels smartphone was wiretapped.
This history (see, it's more about knowing something about politics and history) has lead to the impression that Germany will mostly follow American pressure blindly.
Coupled with the total lack of solid reasons not to use Huawei, this thing just looks like a "don't buy from the Chinese"-request from the US and Cisco.
With such obscure things like former BND chief Schindler saying that Huawei tech is "one and a half to two years more advanced than ours"  and that he fears there would be dependence on Chinese tech (and not on US tech anymore). This is what it's all about. It's not about security, it's about money. As always.
Have you heard of "the curse of knowledge"?
Assuming all the details in your explanation are correct, if someone already knows those details what are they going to get from your comment? And if they don't know those details, how are they supposed to understand your comment?
Only unclear to me? That's obviously untrue, because I can see your earlier replies to me are grayed out from downvotes by others (note especially the "My comment was crystal clear" one), and I know that my comments have been upvoted by several people who clearly think the same about your comment as I do.
Now please leave me alone and find someone else to troll.
Plenty of other users are able to express views similar to yours without crossing into incivility or posting flamebait. Please be like them.
I'll try not to express individual thoughts in the future to fit into the collective.