Germany Has Proof That Huawei Worked With Chinese Intelligence: Handelsblatt (reuters.com) 172
The German government is in possession of evidence that Huawei, the leading maker of telecoms network equipment, has collaborated with Chinese intelligence, the Handelsblatt daily reported on Wednesday. Reuters: "At the end of 2019, intelligence was passed to us by the U.S., according to which Huawei is proven to have been cooperating with China's security authorities," the newspaper quoted a confidential foreign ministry document as saying. Chancellor Angela Merkel's government and her conservative ruling party are split on whether Huawei's equipment poses a security threat to Europe's largest economy, where the three mobile network operators are all customers of the Chinese firm.
So surprising... (Score:3)
LOL (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One is a NATO ally, the other is neutral demonstrating occasional hostilities.
Saying it doesn't matter is like saying there's no difference to kidding your loving wife or kissing a homophobic violent biker. You should try doing both and report back of you think it's just a kiss so who cares who is involved.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
[...] And there is no other technology to use, besides US and Chinese, so... who cares..
For 5G You can use European technology, in the form of Ericsson (sweden) and Nokia (Finland).
Nokia is an odd case, as is comprised of Nokia's Telecoms arm (Finland) which Borged Siemens' Telecom arm (germany), Alcatel (France) and Lucent (US), so, any USoA participation is highly diluted by now...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that is the US position; we're demanding that European countries who want to continue to engage in information sharing with the US must buy European telecommunications gear.
It is really bizarre that they're so resistant to that request. It seems like it should actually be their first preference.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a government that the US government is hostile to, like Iran, it would prob
That was never the question (Score:2)
Of course they work with their intelligence agency. Every vendor large enough everywhere does that. The question was whether they compromise product security by adding backdoors. As far as I can tell, there is still zero evidence for that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that isn't the question. The question is, do you want a hostile foreign power in control of your nation's critical communications infrastructure? Do you want to take the chance that, when push comes to shove, they can't introduce a "critical update" that can cause key delays and failures in critical communications?
The lack of imagination and comprehension -- willful or otherwise -- on Slashdot has gotten to be beyond belief. Think telecom links to dams, nuclear power plants, air control towers, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Both China and the US are mixed bedfellows from Germany's perspective."
What an insane proposition. Unless your perspective is that of a Nazi or soviet sympathizer the US has saved Germany at least twice. If you are I can see why you might not be as worried about China.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much the current public opinion in Germany. The US is regarded as not really trustworthy across the political spectrum. Read some German newspapers for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
You think telcos let vendors push updates to equipment? That is not Windows 10 we are talking about here.
Re: (Score:2)
The question was whether they compromise product security by adding backdoors.
Wrong.
The question was if they reasonably can. And everybody seems to agree the answer is "Yes."
That's the difference; we trust European intelligence agencies not to exercise control over European companies in a way that harms us. Maybe they can; it would be a lot harder. But they maybe could. But it wouldn't be likely to harm the US military in the same was as when it is an adversarial country that can take control of the equipment.
It's only been a few decades since US and Chinese infantry were shoot
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody that produces software can do this. Cisco, for example, has been doing this for ages, camouflaged as implementation mistakes. Alternatively, they are so extremely incompetent that you should stay far, far away from their products.
The question whether anybody can add backdoors to their product is completely meaningless. The only meaningful question is whether they are doing it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the whole point. You missed the whole point. Try again, but slow down. Read the words slowly and carefully, don't just skim them and spew.
Sure (Score:2)
"which Huawei is proven to have been cooperating with China's security authorities,"
Like Apple and Google and Amazon and ....
"Proof". You keep using that word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Germany Has Proof That Huawei Worked With Chinese Intelligence
At the end of 2019, intelligence was passed to us by the U.S
It reminds me when the UK had proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, intelligence passed to them by the U.S...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, considering that Iraq *did*, does that change the character of the discussion?
a) Iraq technically have weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons - they'd even used them previously) (of course, when this is explained, people of a certain political side immediately dismiss chemical weapons as 'adequately' mass destructive - so if you mean nukes, say nukes) and
b) at the very least, it appears that even Saddam Hussein believed he had a functional, progressing nuclear weapons development program includ
Re: (Score:2)
Complete and utter BS.
1) After the invasion, even chemical weapons weren't found in Iraq. They used it prior to the first Gulf War -- that's why we had the first Gulf War. They were then sanctioned with inspectors going into their country on a regular basis.
2) [citation needed]
Chemicals found in Syria and used by Assad. COULD IT HAVE COME FROM GHOST SADDAM??????
Angela Merkel ... (Score:2)
And just like that... (Score:2)
The Chinese government shills come out.
McCarthyism. (Score:2)
So ... everyone then?
Because call me when you EVER see anyone critizizing you imerialost warmongerong fascist-libertarian Fourth Reich God state, and you NOT call him a Chinese/Russian/$insertBigBad shill.
I just wanna see that, even ONCE.
Because like this, it's you too, who looks like a shill/drone.
Spy surprise (Score:2)
Handelsblatt is the financial Breitbart. (Score:3)
They are a mouthpiece of financial-libertarian extremists. Don't trust them even if they tell you the sun is round.
Oh, in the EUSA I'd buy Huawei *because* of that. Just like in China, I'd buy *everyone fucking else, because they are all under NSA control.
Never buy devices in control of the cuntry that has power over you.
Re: (Score:2)
Caffeinated Bacon, DO YOUR JOB AND LIE (Score:2)
Oh, and continue lying about your making your yuen from MSS as well.
Re: Caffeinated Bacon, DO YOUR JOB AND LIE (Score:2)
That's a nice auto industry you have, Germany... (Score:2)
...be a shame if anything happened to it...
This is what Huawei/Germany dustup revolves around now. Germany can give Huawei a big slice of the 5G pie (and probably lobby its EU neighbors to do the same) or it can start having troubles with its auto industry in the Chinese market.
I mean its almost a literal quid pro quo, and I can't say I really blame the Chinese for using this kind of leverage, since it all kind of boils down to who gets to do business in the other's nation.
The bummer for Germany is that the
"If UK can get away with it, so can we" (Score:2)
A comment about Huawei 5G systems being implemented by the British from a discussion on PBS Newshour. US is against it but Brits think it is fine for lowrisk systems. What stuck in my mind was European countries looking at this situation and they want to use Huawei equipment for 5G. If UK goes ahead then other countries will say "If UK can get away with it over US objections, so can we."
Why the U.S. doesn't want Huawei building 5G networks
https://www.pbs.org/video/batt... [pbs.org]
Frenemies (Score:2)
Modern culture has come up with a term that more accurately captures international relationships.
Guess what, it's not a zero sum game. That is, there is no such thing as one nation winning it all, or one nation losing it all. We all happen to co-exist on this planet together, like it or not, and the resources are finite, believe it or not. And there is no nation that is totally self-sufficient as far as I know.
Thus, we might want to more accurately term the Chinese as our competitors. Calling them an enemy
Re: (Score:2)
Was caught with special PRISM rooms and equipment in their central offices. I fail to see what the difference is? The Americans are doing the same thing, but are complaining about the Chinese doing it too?
This was simply the US letting Germany know that Huawei is spying on them for the Chinese government.
Your immediate attack against the US is interesting and all, but not really the point. What I do find kind of hilarious is this statement though:
Chancellor Angela Merkel's government and her conservative ruling party are split on whether Huawei's equipment poses a security threat to Europe's largest economy
I assume the ones not concerned about it are like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany kinda gets to choose between having their infrastructure built for them by companies that will spy for China, or companies that will spy for the US. US agencies sending them proof of something they already know about b
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'd say you hit the nail on the head. Ideologically Europeans argue with the US about which baker to use and which type of pie is best while China hangs or imprisons bakers and dissidents who bake or advocate anything but the official national pie in fact, suggesting there is even another way to make pie might get you in trouble.
In other words, the US is reminding Germany that while we might be peeking and see your dirty laundry we are really just making sure Hitler isn't hiding in the basket becau
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about any threat from Huawei.
The split is between those who are saying "we should do whatever the US says", in this case treat Huawei as the enemy, and those who think the EU should consider following its own interests because the US is forcing them to diverge more and more from those interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I think much of the complaining is because the Chinese are much further down that dark road. At least Americans can criticise the actions of the US state and Intelligence agencies without repercussions (exception is unless you're a high-profile whistleblower... but even whistleblowing seems much harder to do in China). It's also much easier to change laws through the political system the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your question. Running your own intelligence operations has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the intelligence operations of a foreign neutral or hostile entity. (Note lack of use of the word ally).
The Chinese doing this being grounds for not using Chinese technology is 100% consistent and logical, just like they would not use CISCO switches in their network if they had any functioning brain cells.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters that is the US spying on the US, not China spying on everyone else. For another the NSA is essentially an executive branch unofficial military organization headed by military officers so they don't really give two shits about commerce which is disconnected from government in the US. Finally, the US is ideologically on the same page and are strong allies of Germany whereas China is a genocidal dictatorship that opposes all the freedoms and values that US and Germany share.
I guess if you are a Ge
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that ideology probably matters far less in the end. Ultimately it's a question of what you'll be spied on for. The US spies on foreign entities for political reasons. They want to make sure the politics in said country and the citizens of said country are on ideologically friendly grounds with the US.
The Chinese, from what we've seen, are mostly interested in economic espionage. Trade secrets, tech know-how, etc.
I actually question which is more intrusive and dangerous (from the receiver
Re:Like how Apple worked with American intelligenc (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially the trade secrets, as Germany is quite the economic powerhouse in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you would expect from China, but explicitly not said. The phrase used may refer to such actions, but would indeed cover what Apple did when "cooperating with the security authorities"
There are usually two reasons why you would stay deliberately vague. You either can't say the truth and just give enough of a hint for the other side to get the truth anyway, or you're hoping that the other side will infer something but the truth from your words. Both is likely.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA does industrial espionage too: https://www.bbc.com/news/25907... [bbc.com]
Thanks again Snowden.
French intelligence was notorious for bugging Air France flights to spy on business customers. French and British intelligence stole technology for aircraft, including Concorde, from the Russians. In fact the French efforts caused a fatal crash of the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, the Tu-144.
And of course military secrets are basically what the intelligence services are there for, stealing them is lit
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, the fact that this was released is bothersome and shows WHY Germany is in 2nd tier, not 1st. This is the kind of intel that the intelligence world works s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nations have been spying on each other since the beginning.
Anyone suggesting that there is a nation not participating it it is a sheep.
The key problem with China is not that it is engaged in this... the problem is associated with their clear oppress and abuse people more than we are willing to tolerate... or well maybe not. Since people keep buying their shit and countries keep ignoring the problems they are creating.
China is still a paper tiger... the country can be easily defeated now if we take the job
Re: (Score:2)
China is still a paper tiger... the country can be easily defeated now if we take the job seriously. Of course there will be economic pains...
Sounds a lot like what the global warming alarmists are saying. I'm curious if you like this style of argument when they make it.
I'll full believe that the Chinese government is up to some evil self-serving shit. But the same is true of my own government and very likely yours as well regardless of where you're from. The problem is that too many people think that government X is evil while trusting their own to as some kind of good guy in the whole matter. The naivety is astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sounds a lot like what the global warming alarmists are saying. I'm curious if you like this style of argument when they make it."
This is not some "we should do this just in case, what would it hurt if we did?" argument. Not even close, and there is a wide gulf of difference here. China has plenty of current and recent history showing how they operate. Much of it is not even a secret, after all... Countries like China rule with fear for a reason and if people do not know to fear you, then it is not so e
Not quite accurate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"They are (normally) freely elected (trump may be America's first real exception for America)."
Don't buy propaganda. The playbook was almost identical the last time an R was elected. Almost daily and repeated "mocking" impressions suggesting he is evil, widely reporting as the most hated president (this was happening with approval rating on par with Obama at same period). If he doesn't take action he is all bluster, if he does take action he is a moron who has us dangerously teetering on the edge of catastr
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll full believe that the Chinese government is up to some evil self-serving shit. But the same is true of my own government and very likely yours as well regardless of where you're from. The problem is that too many people think that government X is evil while trusting their own to as some kind of good guy in the whole matter. The naivety is astounding."
Of course they are all spying and all up to shit. But it is a false equivalency to say genocide, data rewrite and falsification inline, and an authortari
Re: (Score:2)
China is still a paper tiger... the country can be easily defeated now if we take the job seriously. Of course there will be economic pains... we deserve them, but if we don't... as you can already see now... China will be in even more indirect control of your life and the propaganda that surrounds it, and I am not just talking about movies with pro-China messages and Blizzard pro-players being kicked out of tournaments for being Pro-Hong Kong.
So true about a little economic pain being an excuse to avoid confrontation altogether. As if there is no economic pain to thousands of companies and factories closing due to China and offshoring in general. Off shoring our economic production base for very temporary gains is the ultimate example of spending your kids inheritance. Far more damaging than college debt. They killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care that the future of their Children is being sold down the river, they only care about what they can do now and being purchased like a cheap ho is attractive to them.
It's not like the voters are going to do anything about it. They are still bitching about stupid shit and how nasty leaders sound about shit.
Re: (Score:2)
They might try and spy but we don't want to pay for and install their spy gadgets.
I personally am not aware of the evidence of them spying but I don't have any reason to doubt it either.
Re: (Score:2)
"The US police shoots black poeople for carrying a mobile phone while black, they disenfranchise people and block them from voting based on their political affiliation and their race"
You've been watching way too much TV. Racism is an issue raised mostly by one party for the purpose of getting sympathy voters from the majority and minority solidarity behind their platform, their own anti-racism obsession is the majority of racism seen in the US these days. Hearing them tell the tale you'd think there Nazi's
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intellige (Score:2)
I think it's more of a case of having a couple of thousand being too high for the standards of this country. This is how it should be.
(I get your point, but obviously there is more than a couple of thousand if they can start marches, and memes. Clearly they are many times bigger than the flat earthers)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think it's more of a case of having a couple of thousand being too high for the standards of this country. "
Yes but that is drastically different than the horrible image all that fear mongering seems to conjure in the minds of our friends in Europe. They seem to think we are in Jim Crow times here just like they love to imagine us all being like Neo in the matrix going through security or John Rambo because we have a gun in the closet.
I'd contend a couple thousands is plenty to march and meme, especially
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat offender? You mean the USA? I don't understand which part of the brain is responsible for shutting down which part of the brain to forget that USA has literally been constantly at war with the world since, before I was born!
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intellige (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USA has literally been constantly at war with the world since, before I was born!
OK, Ivan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Even Snowden does not make such a wild claim."
Sorry but that isn't accurate. By Snowden's own account the programs were put in place under W and then MASSIVELY expanded under Obama. This is even referenced in the movie "Snowden" though they avoid saying "Obama" and the narrative just indicates "new president."
Obama as part of his platform swore he'd stop Bushes abuses against citizens but rather than admit guilt in the outstanding cases against the government for domestic spying he expanded the programs.
"P
Re: (Score:2)
But no, I have to differ with you about spying on Allies. Yes, Germany started 2 wars. HOWEVER, your approach is like holding children responsible for their grand parents' and great great grandparents' actions. We have NO RIGHTS to be spying on them. Technically, NSA has done nothing illegal from Amer
Re:Like how Apple worked with American intelligenc (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government and US commercial entities are distinct. The US has a capitalist system with government involvement in corporate interests frowned upon. If the government advocates in some fashion for commercial interests it is generally for entire industries filled with competitors, competitors that may well be partly owned by foreign interests anyway.
Now as for military concerns, that is a different matter altogether. The US has very tight bonds with most European nations, in the case of the UK we are sister countries. In the case of France they were our allies in our revolution and we rescued them from German invasion in WW2. In the case of Germany we helped them rebuild after the overthrow of the Nazi's and pushed until communist east germany was restored. The western portion of mainland Europe could have been annexed by the US after WW2 if that was our intention. Ideologically the US, UK, and Europe have a great deal in common. In short, there is no conflict and foreseeable path to a conflict between the US and Europe if anything the US would be on the lookout for the next Hitler and I doubt the people of western european nations would find that to be the worst thing. China on the other hand is ruled by a dictator for life, has no democracy, no real free market, no free speech, and engages in genocide. Somehow I think you'll find that while they'd rather nobody was spying on them Europeans and European nations would have a much bigger issue with the Chinese military taking an interest than the US military.
Re: (Score:2)
China on the other hand is ruled by a dictator for life, has no democracy, no real free market, no free speech, and engages in genocide.
It is actually even worse than that. With a regular "dictator for life," when they die the country can move forwards. China has a system of dictatorship, where if the dictator doesn't stomp on the people hard enough in their first 10 years, they get replaced, and if they're really awful, then they get to stay for life. But when they die, they just get a new dictator.
And then of course, if you google "organ transplant China" you find a whole system of evil that "genocide" barely begins to go into.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are referring to the CIA coup to stop the spread of communism during the cold war. It is true that lobbying by United Fruit undoubtedly had an impact, and since United Fruit owned most of the country it had a direct impact on United Fruit, the CIA was acting to prevent the spread of communism not with the intent of supporting United Fruit aka Chiquita.
You won't hear argument from me about private interests having too much influence on government in the US but that is a different animal than gov
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intelligen (Score:2)
It's when you have individual companies like Ford, Boeing, or ConocoPhillips doing the funding JUST for their own benefits at the cost to the tax payer and competition. And the corporations are many times just fronts for a Family.
Now you know.
Lobbying is bad, but let's not equate the type that happens in US/CA/EU with what happens in Mexico, China, NK, Indian, SAfrica, etc.
Because of the subpoena, moron (Score:2)
Chinese Intelligence doesn't need one, doesn't need to disclose that they have one and doesn't need to tell everyone what happened afterwards. If Huawei were to hold a press conference or answer questions about their 'working with' Chinese Intelligence, it would be very short and those holding it would likely disappear and/or their family and anyone close to them.
Also, the FBI is a law enforcement agency, not a foreign spying organization.
Are you really so thick you don't understand any of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's what every country calls their spying organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly right, but here in the US we're actually closer to that scenario than we should be. Intelligence services can compel corporate cooperation under a National Security Letter and if anyone in the corporation reveals that they will be prosecuted and face jail time.
There's no question that the non-disclosure provision of an NSL is sometimes reasonable and justified, but the oversight of NSLs is weak. Despite challenges and changes to the law, an NSL can still be approved at the political appoint
Re:Like how Apple worked with American intelligenc (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple recently said it has provided the FBI with gigabytes of data in response to subpoenas, so how is Huawei "working with" Chinese intelligence any different? What a vague hit piece, part of our ongoing misinformation campaign against Huawei to protect US and European private telecom business interests against foreign competition.
Plus, is this evidence that Germany has obtained something they obtained themselves? ... or does it originate from US intelligence? In the latter case one has to wonder whether that US intelligence is any more reliable than the copious evidence they presented for WMDs in Iraq. If anybody wantsto prove Huawei is a security risk had they better be prepared to present bullet proof intelligence, corroborated by multiple sources and they had better be prepared to comment on it in pubic. I'm perfectly prepared to take action over the fact that Chinese intelligence is using Huawei to spy on other countries if given solid proof. What I have questions about is why I should allow US companies whose equipment is already proven to be compromised to the NSA to have access to European markets? If the US wants us to ban Huawei in the EU single market over espionage I see no reason why US equipment manufacturers should not be banned as well since US equipment manufacturers already constitute a well documented and serious security risk.
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intelligen (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in the navy when saddam used WMDs on the kurds. They sure as hell didnt gas themselves. Those wmds didnt just cease to exist. So its not pure speculation that there were WMDs. Especially with all the attempts to subvert the un inspectors.
Besides, it came out later that saddam himself ran a huge FUD campaign to convince the world, specifically Iran, that he had stockpiles of crazy types of WMDs. This was part of the reason he had so many - dual use - purchases. So he kind of hung himself, quite literally. To put it in perspective, make sure you were completely without ownership of any sort of weapons, make public threats about killing all the kids at your local elementary school, go on social media and behaved unhinged, and then show up at school. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure youâ(TM)re not gonna claim bad police work. Posing as a school shooter, albeit unarmed, is a fast track to suicide by cop. Saddam went all suicide by cop with his poser campaign against the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you give intelligence agencies too much credit. There is a ton of profiling and guesswork involved. Take my analogy of posing as a school shooter. Now lets amend that analogy to include a police record.. 10yrs ago you were arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm on government property. 8 years ago you were arrested for simple assault, 3 months later picked up for domestic abuse, and several drunk and disorderly citations in the last 15 years. Still think the police are at fault if they shoot y
Re: (Score:2)
Even in your analogy, the police wouldn't exactly just show up and shoot the guy on site. Regardless of record, he's innocent until proven guilty. So if he shows up to school, the police can be there and ask him to go through a metal detector or submit to a search. But unless he clearly seems like he's drawing a weapon at the officer, they wouldn't be in the right to outright shoot him in the face.
That's what we did with Iraq.
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intellige (Score:2)
You are arguing a different point. I never said an invasion was justified, just that the intel was, in fact, credible. In fact, I think that the shit Trump is doing to Iran right now would have been more effective if we had done that same thing against Iraq. My point is that the cops took the threat seriously i.e. the intel was credible. To say the intel community deliberately lied would be to insist the cops dont even bother coming to school. Metal detectors? Thats the inspectors saddam kicked out. The in
Re: (Score:2)
The original argument (as I read in this thread) was that the Intel was circumstantial (as you've said) and wasn't solid enough to justify invasion. The OP then went on to say that real, solid evidence is needed and that political bodies (especially the US) tended to use not-as-solid intel (however credible that Intel was) as a solid basis for very rash actions.
Re: (Score:2)
which has described every military action ever carried out. Even the killing of killing Bin Laden. Intel is never ever 'solid'. Intel is a bunch of analysts and advisors giving you facts, clues, and conjecture to paint possible pictures. Ultimately intelligence does not make decisions, only advises as to the likelihood. If it were they would not have been nearly the number of failed assassinations... err targeted strikes. How many times did we think we took out muhammad omar in drone strikes?
here are some
Re: (Score:2)
So we're in agreement that nation-destroying activities should probably not be carried out based on Intel? Especially one supplied by one intelligence agency and not corroborated?
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intellige (Score:2)
As far as iraq i think what trump is doing to iran is 100x more effective than invasion. You kick out un inspectors? Sanctions. Claim you are not enriching uranium while simultaneously claiming Israel will be wiped from the map soon in nuclear fire? Sanctions.
Not one bomb drops, and the citizens eventually revolts. What is happening with Iran is better than any military action could be at a fraction of the cost. Iran cant even exchange with the world bank for the most part. Which means it cannot sell its oi
Re: (Score:2)
So where were the WMD stockpiles after the war? They weren't there. The intelligence agencies lied. Lied us into a war with a nation that never attacked us. I'm not gonna say Saddam was a good guy, but we helped him against Iran, remember?
Saudis, Guzzetti, Branco, Pinochet, Chiang, Batista, Battalion, Suharto, the Shah, Vang Pao, Somosa, Mobutu ... just a small list of dictators supported by the US.
Re: (Score:3)
im not disagreeing, but I wouldnt go as far as saying lying. When you go to great extent to make people think you are a drug dealer, to the extent of faking bank transfers, cash deposits, and people stopping by your house regularly for brief visits, dont complain when the cops bash in your door for probably cause. That was pretty much what saddam did. And if you remember far enough back we were selling arms to both iran and iraq, hoping to make the military industrial complex filthy rich while these two fac
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intellige (Score:2)
Iran sure as hell believed it. Otherwise they sure as hell would have invaded. You are armchair quarterbacking here. Having actually been there in the first war and knowing what passes for Intel from not just the cia and nsa, but massad, its never 100%. Hell its never even 50%. You seem to think itâ(TM)s a simple as opening up a directory and looking at the names of the files and going yep here is the files labeled WMD.bat. Thatâ(TM)s nowhere close to the way that crap works. When you go to jail f
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intelligen (Score:4, Informative)
From what I recall the intelligence agencies didn't really lie, they had info but it was speculous at best and highly circumstantial.
The runaround that Saddam was doing with UN inspectors was intentional as he thought they had legitimate weaponry. People were just being told to move stuff and not questioning why.
In reality the lying was being done to Saddam, he wanted to build them up but the sanctions were actually working in that they couldn't get the materials but no one was telling him that, they just snowed him for the funding.
The key person that the US evidence was based on was a defector who used the knowledge he had as a negotiation ploy to get out of there. I believe that he knew it was all BS and was afraid he was going to get caught.
The initial push to invade was from DoD as they were still hurt that Afghanistan was a CIA operation not theirs and they had toys they wanted to play with. CIA questioned the validity of the informant but was ignored as being bitter.
At literally the 59th minute of the 11th hour, they finally figured out the guy was lying but then it was too late to save face.
Re: Like how Apple worked with American intelligen (Score:4, Insightful)
My recollection of the events was pretty different. I remember watching the state of the union address where Dubya said "a Brittish intelligence agency believes Saddam is seeking to purchase uranium". I remember thinking to myself, "that's a curious way to put it, what do OUR agencies think."
And of course, it turns out that they didn't think that was credible intel. I remember them continuing to think that until the administration created a special office in the pentagon to invent intel, which they then took before congress for the authorization of force. I remember the U.N. inspectors on the ground were finding nothing, even after going back over and over at the insistence of the U.S.
I remember the administration selling the authorization of force as a bargaining chip, that would never be used.
I remember thinking "this is incredibly blatant, surely nobody is falling for this." I was a young man.
And that's pretty much the time I realized that governments are about serving the agenda's of those in power, not the people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was in the navy when saddam used WMDs on the kurds. They sure as hell didnt gas themselves. Those wmds didnt just cease to exist. So its not pure speculation that there were WMDs. Especially with all the attempts to subvert the un inspectors.
Besides, it came out later that saddam himself ran a huge FUD campaign to convince the world, specifically Iran, that he had stockpiles of crazy types of WMDs. This was part of the reason he had so many - dual use - purchases. So he kind of hung himself, quite literally. To put it in perspective, make sure you were completely without ownership of any sort of weapons, make public threats about killing all the kids at your local elementary school, go on social media and behaved unhinged, and then show up at school. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure youâ(TM)re not gonna claim bad police work. Posing as a school shooter, albeit unarmed, is a fast track to suicide by cop. Saddam went all suicide by cop with his poser campaign against the world.
That is a bogus argument. Saddam may have had WMD's before the first US-Iraq war but he had none after that conflict. If he had them why weren't they found after the second US-Iraq war? You'd think an intelligence service worth its upkeep would see through a smokescreen as pathetic as the one you claim Saddam put up after the first US-Iraq war. The only explanations for the failure of US intelligence services to see through Saddam's simplistic deceptions after the first US-Iraq war it that (a) US intelligen
Re: (Score:2)
Germany trusting the USA at a time when trust is hard to come by does carry a bit of weight, especially since they were on the record as planning to ignore the USA concerns earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
"that US intelligence is any more reliable than the copious evidence they presented for WMDs in Iraq"
If by copious mean non-existent? If anything was presented it certainly is likely to be more reliable than that!
"I'm perfectly prepared to take action over the fact that Chinese intelligence is using Huawei to spy on other countries if given solid proof. "
That seems like a hard stance given that Huawei is funded and controlled by Chinese government and there is no legal division between government and commer
Re:Like how Apple worked with American intelligenc (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, of course, in response to subpoenas, which the Chinese government would never trifle with.
Nations spy on each other. They always have and they probably always will, but, the fact that the US (and likely others) do it is in no way mitigates the danger of a Chinese surveillance superstate.
There are no checks and balances in an authoritarian state,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many subpoenas signed off in secret that have gagging clauses to stop the companies involved from telling anyone about them have been used in the USA ...
Nobody knows, the USA has it's own surveillance superstate
Re: (Score:2)
"the checks and balances are usually there to protect the people of the state, not foreign entities."
The US entities are owned in no small part by foreign entities or are US arms of foreign entities. Unlike China the US market is completely open to foreign players who play on equal terms.
" So if the US spies on Germany (which has been proven), the latter has almost no recourse (other than international institutions, such as the UN)."
Have you ever stopped to think about WHY the US might be spying on Germany
Re: (Score:2)
"The US entities are owned in no small part by foreign entities or are US arms of foreign entities. Unlike China the US market is completely open to foreign players who play on equal terms."
This isn't entirely true. While nowhere near as closed off as China, foreign entities do follow a much harsher set of rules for owning US entities. I can point you to many many mergers and acquisitions which were denied by various US agencies on national security grounds.
Then there's the current embargo on providing IP a
Re: (Score:2)
"Then there's the current embargo on providing IP and equipment to Huawei..."
Huawei is the Chinese government. There are European providers of equivalent technologies who are not banned and there is nothing from stopping foreign citizens from buying stock in US tech companies, at least nothing on the US side.
"The US has setup a world apparatus where they can even dictate who *other countries* do arms business with."
The US participates in a world apparatus, it doesn't unilaterally operate it. The US also was
Re: (Score:2)
"Huawei is the Chinese government."
I fail to see your point. The US literally imposed on its own (and its ally's) private enterprises a rule stating who they can and cannot do business with. Again, not a bad thing but hardly the free-for-all you paint it to be.
"There are European providers of equivalent technologies who are not banned and there is nothing from stopping foreign citizens from buying stock in US tech companies, at least nothing on the US side."
Not true. Like most countries, US securities must
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI is a domestic police force not an intelligence organization. Domestic intelligence would the NSA and foreign intelligence would be the CIA or DIA
Re: (Score:2)
Apple recently said it has provided the FBI with gigabytes of data in response to subpoenas, so how is Huawei "working with" Chinese intelligence any different?
You don't see why a company working with our own intelligence apparatus vs. a foreign one where critical domestic communications infrastructure is concerned is an entirely different matter?
Don't be thick, its obviously different. Now for the sake of argument the Chinese could be totally forgiven for not wanting key party members caring iphones for similar reasons. The key question that needs answering is how do deal with critical infrastructure being composed of complex largely opaque equipment sourced fro
Re:Like how [C] worked with American intelligence? (Score:2)
FTFY. The moderation into invisibility was justified, but [C] as an arbitrary Company in America would make a lot of sense, though the Germans would be reluctant to publicize the proof for most American companies.
It actually is highly relevant to know which companies work with the security agencies of which governments. However Apple (the troll's original target) is notable as one of the few companies that resists playing along.
To me it is actually somewhat advantageous to know that a Chinese company is und
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid this post does not contain enough information to infer who you are referring to as "us", if not China.
Russia? USA? Anyone from South America?
Re: (Score:3)
The first thing I asked myself was: Who owns Handelsblatt (the German equivalent of the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times)? Is it part of the News International / Fox / Murdoch conglomerate?
The answer is No. Further than that, the owner used to be a director of Dow Jones & Company Inc but resigned in protest when Rupert Murdoch's News International bought them.
Now to the article itself. It seems to be based on information from the US government, it includes the information that German diplo
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely. Why bother with a story if they are not even going to provide evidence to back up their claims/assertions. Here in the US we are getting so used to having bogus crap and untrue assertions shoveled at us that one has either already drunk the Koolaid or is by now very skeptical of almost anything being dished out without the accompanying evidence. Without evidence, this is only political noise.