IEEE tells contributors with links to Chinese corp: Don't let the door hit you on Huawei out

Compsci academics are startled by how the US-based IEEE is complying with American sanctions on Huawei. That includes halting peer review by anyone connected to the Chinese company – and banning them from buying IEEE-branded coffee mugs. The New York-headquartered Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, one of the …

[Chris G]

It looks more and more like a bid to destroy any competition from Huawei as a leading electronics and IT company, the US must be really pissed off that a business from a communist/socialist country has come from nowhere in a relatively short time to dominate a capitalist market.

The US and the dollar must prevail at any cost.

After the Orange one has finished his chat in Japan, I wonder what santcions will be applied there if Japan doesn't have a satisfactory response to balancing the US trade deficit with them.

After that Europe is on the list I suppose.

[Anonymous Coward]

careful

>It looks more and more like a bid to destroy any competition from Huawei as a leading electronics and IT company, the US 1%ers must be really pissed off

FIFY. A lot of us are just looking forward to 2020 and this nightmare going away. 1%ers will still be calling the shots but hopefully the proles avoid the cut off our nose to spite our face choice.

[Mark 85]

Re: careful

A lot of us are just looking forward to 2020 and this nightmare going away. 1%ers will still be calling the shots but hopefully the proles avoid the cut off our nose to spite our face choice.

This is a long shot given history as incumbents tend to get re-elected. He knows his target audience very well and unless they actually think about things, he's not going anywhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: careful

Never had a POTUS spend his entire first term underwater in popularity as well. And with a looming recession he largely caused with his mercantilism policies there is possibly Jimmy Carter blood in the water.

[Anonymous Coward]

Presitator for life

What if Trump ends presidential term limits, like Xi Jinping?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ZCJnf-qMw

The US might have to start imitating China soon to keep up with their technological lead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Presitator for life

Way things are going Trump can't even keep his squandering of his dad's fortune and his tax evasion a secret thanks to the courts. Not so worried about him becoming dictator for life.

[EveryTime]

Re: Presitator for life

I had to dive into politically related topics, but Trump apparently did a remarkable job of turning a modest business loss into billions of dollars in future tax benefits. It appears that he is a second-rate businessman, but inherited top-notch tax accountants from his father.

[Ken Hagan]

Re: Presitator for life

I believe Trump would need two-thirds of Congress to back him on that. In contrast, Xi Jinping just needed Xi Jinping to back him on that. It's worth remembering the differences between the two countries, however much we may find them both annoying from time to time.

[Roland6]

Re: Presitator for life

>I believe Trump would need two-thirds of Congress to back him on that.

But only if he doesn't declare it to be a 'National Emergency' ...

[Barry Rueger]

Re: Presitator for life

But only if he doesn't declare it to be a 'National Emergency' ...

No joke. There are pretty knowledgeable people discussing just this possibility. At issue is a working assumption that a lot of things are just understood to be conditions of the job of President; that there are behaviours and actions that no President would ever consider. Because Trump just refuses to be constrained by anything - even the law in some cases - there's a concern that he might just decide to become President for Life.

And if he just refuses to go? What would they do?

[Wellyboot]

Re: Presitator for life

It would take a constitutional amendment to change either the 4 year term or 2 term limit, I can’t see the slightest chance of several hundred lawmakers doing that before 2024. Congress can overturn any presidential emergency declaration or veto (two thirds of both houses puts congress in the driving seat).

Some smart minds spent a long time thinking this through at a time when absolute power resting in one individual was 'as it has always been'.

Refusal to go would effectively be declaring himself 'King' and I doubt he’d survive a week.

[jelabarre59]

Re: Presitator for life

It would take a constitutional amendment to change either the 4 year term or 2 term limit, I can’t see the slightest chance of several hundred lawmakers doing that before 2024. Congress can overturn any presidential emergency declaration or veto (two thirds of both houses puts congress in the driving seat).

I seem to remember a lot of the same talk going around about Obama when he was president, that he'd try to get a third term. And it was treated as a serious concern then as well. Only difference being that Obama in his delusional mind thought the country needed him for longer, while Trump would probably need it to flog his own ego. (disclaimer: I am not a fan of the candidates *either* side of the two-party-fraud have presented to us for the 40+ years I've been able to vote). Heck, not even sure if President-For-Life Roosevelt should have been in office as long as he was. And had JFK not been assassinated, would his legacy be anywhere near as big as it is?

[Kiwi]

Re: Presitator for life

And had JFK not been assassinated, would his legacy be anywhere near as big as it is?

I saw a documentary on that.

Turns out that no, had JFK not been assassinated he would've been arrested within days and spent the rest of his life in prison.

Fortunately the crew of a wayward mining ship with some sort of time-travel thingy were able to assist him and have him assassinate himself.

[Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese]

Re: Presitator for life

"And if he just refuses to go? What would they do?"

"Say, Mr President, how about we go for a little walk over by that grassy knoll?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Presitator for life

"Fine. Mind if a few million of my rabid, gun-loving fans who would vote for me even if I shot someone in broad daylight in 5th Avenue come along?"

The concern is that his fanatical power base makes him bold enough to just throw the Constitution aside, laws and consequences be damned.

[hammarbtyp]

Re: Presitator for life

Unfortunately as Trevor Noah on the daily show pointed out, Trump is the blacklight on the US constitution.

i.e He is is showing the areas where everyone assumed there was well defined law on the limits of presidential power, were in fact based on the assumption of acceptance of political good manners, and in fact had never actually been tested in court.

Could Trump refuse to accept a election loss or add a 3rd term? In theory yes. For example he could try and get the election declared null and void due to supposed voting irregularities or declare a national emergency, manufactured or not. Whether the Senate or Courts would go for this, is unsure, but certainly the former has been remarkable quiet about the stretch of presidential authority in the past.

The real question is what would happen if he refused to go? What legal recourse are there to remove a president who refuses to play ball? In the end democracy depends on people assuming that people will play by the rules , when you get people like Trump who believe in there own self-given right to make the rules, you can only hope that there are enough people in the system whose loyalty is to the concept of democracy, rather than the mockery that it could become

[DontFeedTheTrolls]

Re: Presitator for life

It's not about Trump staying, he can stay and do anything he likes.

He would however need either the "Government" to accept his continued power, or he would need the military to back him and overrule the government.

If he were to attempt to stay, that freedom to bear arms suddenly makes sense (although I really doubt even Trump would be stupid enough to try and stay in power).

[hammarbtyp]

Re: Presitator for life

If he were to attempt to stay, that freedom to bear arms suddenly makes sense (although I really doubt even Trump would be stupid enough to try and stay in power).

Trump has so far managed to confound those who underestimated his stupidity. Unfortunately narcissism has no upper limits. Trumps problem (well one of his many problems) is that he cannot conceive of someone not voting for him, therefore if anyone does it is down to fraud, fake news etc.

stupid is as stupid does

[nijam]

Re: Presitator for life

> ... he cannot conceive of someone not voting for him, therefore if anyone does it is down to fraud, fake news, etc.

which constitutes proof in his mind*, and consequently his supporters will immediately agree.

* Yes, I know, not really a mind, is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

@ hammarbtyp

I agree with your post here, except for your use of the terms "narcissism" and "stupidity"....personally I think the correct term is psychopathy.

I read Jon Ronson's rather excellent book "The Psychopath Test" a while back. When Trump got voted in and I started paying more attention to him, I could see so many similarities between his behaviours and those described in Ronson's book as being traits of psychopaths.

A sobering thought really....most times we think of a psychopath, it's the stereotypical image of a mad axe murderer. Unfortunately, some psychopaths may be armed with a nuclear arsenal. Oh well.....sleep well, kids.

[Kiwi]

Re: @ hammarbtyp

I read Jon Ronson's rather excellent book "The Psychopath Test" a while back.

Damn you!

When I read your post I immediately wondered if a good friend of mine would have that book. Sure enough he did (he actually mentioned the case of Broadmoor/Tony to me a few months back).

Now I'm reading it.

I somehow doubt I will sleep tonight.

Thanks for the sleepless night.. And thanks very much for the tip to a good read that'll fill it! :)

(I agree with the Scientologist guy BTW - psychs are themselves rather dangerous types who make everything up as they go along - psychologists being the worst among them)

[David 18]

Re: Presitator for life

"If he were to attempt to stay, that freedom to bear arms suddenly makes sense (although I really doubt even Trump would be stupid enough to try and stay in power)."

I was sort of thinking the same thing, that is (sort of) one of the reasons for that being in the constitution, as I understand it from here in the UK anyway.

The problem is, most of the gun-totin' fraternity, the ones with the biggest firepower anyway, are likely to be firmly entrenched in Camp Trump.

Anyway, we are likely going to have our own civil war to worry about instead soon, if the Brexit nonsense keeps up any longer.

[jelabarre59]

Re: Presitator for life

The problem is, most of the gun-totin' fraternity, the ones with the biggest firepower anyway, are likely to be firmly entrenched in Camp Trump.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of libertarians in the fraternity, and there are plenty there who would like to see a one-term-then-leave philosophy. Personally I think we already *have* a "term limits" system in place, it's called an election. Just that we have too many sheeple and not enough citizens. Besides, I've seen "Yes Minister", and I fully understand where the real power base would flow in a stringent term limits system.

[James Anderson]

Re: careful

But he knows how to work a broken system.

As long as a voter in north Dakota has four times the voting power of a voter in California he can win elections while being hated by most of the population.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: careful

Are you referring to the system that tries to keep the US as a union of equal States, rather than having the most populous states dominating absolutely everywhere?

You are- or at least are supposed to be- a Union, remember?

[James Anderson]

Re: careful

That's the senate where an ND voter will have something like 10 times the voting power. The electoral college gives them this much smaller advantage.

Why the US is still using a system created because it took a week to get from Maine to Washington DC in 1780, in 2020?

[jelabarre59]

Re: careful

Why the US is still using a system created because it took a week to get from Maine to Washington DC in 1780, in 2020?

Because too many parties (in multiple usages of that word) benefit from the system as it stands. Mind you, in states like NY I would like to see an electoral-type system for electing US Senators where each county's popular vote is tallied and the winner for that county gets ONE "electoral" vote. Those get tallied and the Senator is elected by the county totals. As it stands right now the heavy population centers (hello, NYC and Buffalo) run roughshod over the rural areas of the state. The population centers would still have "personal" representation in the House of Representatives.

I have seen one suggestion that electors should simply be chosen at random, and the vote should be just theirs to do. At 538 electors, I think there's too much chance for tampering and undue influence. Rather, if you randomly chose between 25-50 (no more than 50) people per "electoral" seat, and had them decide the election, that would be between 13,450-26,900 votes, too big to readily manipulate, yet small enough to still be reached by ALL candidates (and not just the Demopublicans and Republicrats).

[jelabarre59]

Re: careful

Are you referring to the system that tries to keep the US as a union of equal States, rather than having the most populous states dominating absolutely everywhere?

Yeah, well the War of Northern Aggression put an end to the idea that the States had power equivalent to the National government. No matter how stupid the South's reason to leave was, they still had the right to.

One theory has it that with all the land acquisitions, and subsequent new states established in those territories, the National government has effectively established itself as the dominant power.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@AC Re: careful

You must not know US politics.

Or are very young to remember Jimmy Carter.

Trump is Trump and he was better than the alternative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: careful

I am very sorry for the 99%-ers, but I am close to the point that when I read anything containing the letters “US” or “American (sic)”, I am gonna vomit. All due to the Orange-Utan & his Trumpansees.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Chris G not quite.

The WSJ had a very in depth report on Huewei.

Not at all flattering.

Just ask Motorola.

[Yes Me]

Re: @Chris G not quite.

Motorola? Didn't they once make interesting products, back in history?

US industry doesn't like being beaten by cheaper, better products. Even companies that started out by borrowing intellectual property from, say, Stanford University to mention but one victim. And US industry is very good at lobbying the fools in Washington into anti-competitive behaviour and even a trade war that is damaging US trade quite severely.

[jelabarre59]

Re: @Chris G not quite.

And US industry is very good at lobbying the fools in Washington into anti-competitive behaviour and even a trade war that is damaging US trade quite severely.

The steel industry did it at one time. And the US automaker industry got various bits of favouritist legislation and rules passed, yet **STILL** couldn't manage to succeed even in a rigged market.

I may believe in "laissez-faire", but I see it as having TWO sides; you have the right to run your business as you see fit, but you ALSO have the right to fail with no expectation of bailouts. Many companies only see the first part and not the second.

[Charles 9]

Re: @Chris G not quite.

Because the second has real-life, sometimes deadly consequences, and those consequences can affect elections. What do you tell the wife and kids of a man who worked hard for a company for 20 years only for it to suddenly collapse overnight through no fault of his own, and he's not in a position to be able to swing into another career anymore? You always have to consider the collateral damage because YOU may well become collateral damage, too. And desperate people tend to do desperate things, which isn't good for society in general.

[Commswonk]

If it hadn't before...

The Thought Police have become a reality in the US.

Not nice.

Aside: I never know if it should be "Police has" or Police have"...

[Ken Hagan]

Re: If it hadn't before...

I think it is always "police have", since police are plural. However, in the UK you will find many who say "the police force are" but I think this is much less common in the US, where the traditional grammatical rules insist that a force is singular, no matter how many police are in it.

[Charles 9]

Re: If it hadn't before...

Because collective nouns are addressed in singular (seeing the group as a group rather than just multiple units within--forest vs. trees).

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: If it hadn't before...

In AmEnglish, yes. In BrEnglish, collective nouns are often treated as grammatically plural. This is well-established usage. You frequently see it in reference to corporations, for example ("Micro Focus have announced...").

Essentially AmEnglish conventional usage leans toward making the verb agree in number with the syntactic number of the noun, while BrEnglish leans toward making the verb agree in number with the semantic number of the noun.

Neither is any more "correct" than the other, of course, unless you subscribe to the religion of linguistic prescriptivism.

[Charles 9]

Re: If it hadn't before...

I think it also has to do with being able to distinguish between multiple units, a collective of units...and multiple collectives (say, distinguishing between a team, addressed in the singular, and multiple teams, addressed in the plural--in British English, both would be addressed in the plural).

[Erik4872]

This whole thing is getting nuts

It looks like we're in for another Cold War scenario. The US and other countries aren't really set up to deal with companies that have soft and sometimes hard control exerted by their host governments. It kind of works when only manufacturing is involved, but when state influence could be used to add backdoors to communications equipment it gets sticky. But that's the cost of dealing with this system. China exerts influence on key industries and companies when it makes sense strategically -- that doesn't happen much here. For all the money the US invested in keeping GM and Chrysler solvent, there was no talk of nationalizing the industry. Meanwhile in China, the government took a "whatever it takes" approach to avoiding the worst of the 2008 financial crisis by stimulating domestic demand, building massive infrastructure projects, etc. It's just a really different setup.

Already we're seeing China respond by moving their military systems to a homegrown OS, removing Cisco from their networks, and Huawei itself announcing they've developed their own mobile OS now that they don't have access to some Android features anymore. Not exactly a recipe for good future relations...

[Anonymous Coward]

@Erik4872 - Re: This whole thing is getting nuts

Yep! Cold War has been upgraded to version 2.0

[Sanguma]

Cold War v2.0 Re: @Erik4872 - This whole thing is getting nuts

And Cold Wars run until one side runs out of money. Or are forced to get kinetic. Remember the RN's blockade of Napoleanic France and Napoleanic Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ho hum

Been wondering why I keep paying IEEE subs. This makes me wonder more.

[Jim Mitchell]

Re: Ho hum

Even "International" bodies have to be based somewhere. Unless you are the UN, IOC or FIFA, you have to obey somebodies laws.

[David Webb]

Re: Ho hum

Most of them (like the IOC and FIFA) end up in Switzerland where neutrality is kinda their thing, it's also where the web came from (CERN) so there is no reasonable reason for international committees to head over to the Swiss and be out of the reach of American/Chinese/European politics.

[Dal90]

Re: Ho hum

Ask the Swiss banks how far out of reach of American prosecutors they are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-14/a-top-swiss-bank-settles-a-decade-after-secrecy-began-to-crumble

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-secrecy/era-of-bank-secrecy-ends-as-swiss-start-sharing-account-data-idUSKCN1MF13O

...and don't forget that financial crime is why Meng Wanzhou is being detained in Canada currently...

https://www.reuters.com/article/newsloop-usa-china-huawei-tech-charges/u-s-unseals-indictments-against-chinas-huawei-and-cfo-meng-wanzhou-idUSKCN1PM2IC

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ho hum

Ask the US prosecutors how many years did it took for them to make Swiss government bending the knee. Uncle Sam would definitely not able to arbitrarily impose such thing with ease were IEEE based in Berne.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Dal90 - Re: Ho hum

That "financial crime" would be easily forgiven if China would just put a knee down and sign the commercial treaty dictated by US president. Funny isn't it ?

[wakero]

Re: Ho hum

By the way, US banks are making great profits at the moment, because since the Swiss were prevented by the US, they have taken over that business, with the same illegal methods.

"america first"

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Ho hum

"so there is no reasonable reason for international committees to head over to the Swiss"

I take it you mean no reasonable reason not to etc.

Upvoted on that assumption. Done the same thing myself...

[ScissorHands]

Re: Ho hum

There used to be something called the ITU, that had lots and lots of technical documents and specifications about communication protocols, but then geeks took over and started swapping RFCs. Geeks start with the best intentions but totally fail to see the big (political) picture: cf. Facebook, fake news, and the death of journalism.

[nijam]

Re: Ho hum

You seriously believe the ITU was was any better? A collection of state-run telecoms organisations, state-mandated telecoms monopolies, and assorted similar vested interests. We'd still be on 300 baud analogue wires if they'd had their way.

[Yes Me]

Re: Ho hum

I don't know what you mean by that, but in any case international standards (for 5G) are out of scope; even the current US regime isn't quite that daft. The "Temporary General License" says:

BIS authorizes, subject to other provisions of the EAR, engagement with Huawei and/or the sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates as necessary for the development of 5G standards as part of a duly recognized international standards body (e.g., IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IETF – Internet Engineering Task Force; ISO – International Organization for Standards; ITU – International Telecommunications Union; ETSI- European Telecommunications Standards Institute; 3GPP - 3rd Generation Partnership Project; TIA- Telecommunications Industry Association; and GSMA, a.k.a., GSM Association, Global System for Mobile Communications).

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Ho hum

As an undergrad, I was invited to join the IEEE. I threw the application out when I saw they still (at that time) required endorsements from two members in good standing. I was interested in joining a professional organization, not a club.

Since then, I've never seen any real reason to review that decision. I get significant benefits from my ACM membership. The incremental benefits of belonging to IEEE aren't compelling.

[Anonymous Coward]

The universe can make you smile ..........

Just re-installed an old laptop and haven't installed any ad blocker yet. Came on the reg and read this story.

SURROUNDED by HUAWEI adverts.

Brilliant.

[alain williams]

Simple solution - fork

If USA resident global standards bodies can no longer longer do their jobs then create a new body that can/will talk to every organisation in a way free from political interference. Take the current standards as the starting point and develop then in an inclusive manner.

Because the rest of the world is larger than the USA (in spite of what Mr orange thinks) the non USA standards body should prevail. If the USA then does not follow international standards they will have problems selling their kit internationally.

OK: not as simple as I suggest, but something along these lines has to be the way forwards.

While we are at it also grab to non-USA control the functions of IANA and similar.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Simple solution - fork

I wonder how long it will take for currently US tech businesses to come to the same conclusion and shift their HQs. Just use a US franchisee to conduct any sales there. ROTW is a big place compared to the US so cutting yourself off from it isn't going to be a good idea.

[EveryTime]

Re: Simple solution - fork

Which large "US" tech business is still in the US? Most of their revenue (or simply just the profit) is booked in a tax haven country. The use the benefits of the US legal and financial systems, but are organized to avoid US taxes where possible.

[stiine]

Re: Simple solution - fork

In which country are you going to form your organization that isn't going to requre that you comply with local laws?

Your fork is now a spoon.

[sabroni]

Re: In which country?

Any country that doesn't think it's jurisdiction is "the rest of the world" would be better than the USA.

[Pascal Monett]

Re: In which country are you going to form your organization

A country whose local laws make lawyers of a multinational corporation smile.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Simple solution - fork

Quite a few countries will take a flexible negotiating position with big companies.

Look up the history of Apple & Irelands tax avoidance schemes.

[DontFeedTheTrolls]

Re: Simple solution - fork

As someone else commented, all standards bodies must be based somewhere, so will always be under the jurisdiction of a Country and the whims of those in power from time to time.

There are many better Countries than the US that can be selected, but they do all have their own laws and politics.

Or perhaps such bodies should be incorporated under the UN and be subject to laws set out by the UN and not any host country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sauce for the goose

Thank for the heads-up!

I think I will be politely declining any invitations to review for IEEE, and inform the responsible editor as to the reasons, until such time this policy is rescinded. From now on, I will also make a point of checking whether other US-based journals and societies requesting my (unpaid) services make similarly discriminatory provisions (ACS has traditionally followed all restrictions of this type; APS at least tried to resist on several occasions). If they do, I do not believe helping them would be a good use of my limited time.

[Roland6]

Re: Sauce for the goose

>I think I will be politely declining any invitations to review for IEEE

Depending on the number of requests, it might be worth getting a .cn email address to use in these circumstances...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sauce for the goose

You posing that nonymously sure makes it seem like the probability of you reviewing anything seem slim to done

[martinusher]

IEEE misunderstands its role

In the article there's a reference to "walling off Huawei from cutting edge US research" or words to that effect. That completely misstates the function of organizations like the IEEE. Its a coordinating body, not a research organization, and it happens to be the owner of various standards simply because as coordinator its performing a useful function. Interference by the US government in what is essentially an international activity is likely to result in the US being sidelined from standards deliberations -- yes, individuals will be allowed to participate but the standards will be prepared in a country that will guarantee not to interfere in the setting and disseminating of global standards.

Yet another example of how a) the Trump administration doesn't understand soft power and b) how its hubris is doing us long term damage.

Incidentally, what I didn't realize until recently is that the attacks on Huawei and ZTE are enshrined in law as part of the Defense Authorization Act 2018. This is somewhat of a novel step, its never been done before, and it is doubtful legality. (Another thing that Trump and his entourage doesn't get is that in the US the government has to obey the law, it is not the law.) Huawei is challenging it in court. Although the current crew are busy packing the Federal court system with judges deemed to be ideologically sound (after years of holding up appointments to create a huge backlog of vacancies) its still quite possible that the courts may tell the administration that its actions violate the Constitution. One weakness in this approach of singling out individual corporations is that, as Trump knows only too well, its not particularly difficult to create a web of corporations.....maybe the Chinese might start playing corporate Whack-a-Mole?

[the spectacularly refined chap]

Re: IEEE misunderstands its role

Interference by the US government in what is essentially an international activity is likely to result in the US being sidelined from standards deliberations

There's nothing here to suggest the IEEE or similar organizations were ever considered when the restrictions were put in place - do you really think Trump would have that kind of foresight? They've simply been caught up by the same rules as everyone else. Nor do I think the IEEE have misunderstood anything either - the standards are a relatively small part of what they do. It's the journals where the bulk of the action is. And yes, by their very nature they are dealing with cutting edge stuff potentially subject to various forms of IP claim.

[EveryTime]

Re: IEEE misunderstands its role

I agree that the IEEE wasn't the target, or even considered. This, like making it harder for people to speak at conferences in the US, is collateral damage.

[Pascal Monett]

@ martinusher

"Another thing that Trump and his entourage doesn't get is that in the US the government has to obey the law, it is not the law"

I am absolutely thrilled to learn that. Now could you please explain why the law doesn't seem to be lifting the slightest little finger to bitch slap the orange monkey and force him to learn that ?

Because, up to now, it would seem that the waste of air that is occupying the Oval Office is the law, since the law is not slapping every one of his unlawful acts down. Some of them, when a judge can be bothered, but not all of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ martinusher

"Now could you please explain why the law doesn't seem to be lifting the slightest little finger to bitch slap the orange monkey and force him to learn that ?"

Simple. The law itself (as in the Constitution) says so. The President, plain and simple, cannot be prosecuted while in office. Once he's out is another matter, but not IN office.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy at its finest

to hear US claiming Huawei is obeying orders from Chinese government while at the same time more and more US companies and supposedly neutral organizations are obeying orders from.... why yes, the good ol' US govmnt God bless them! Same thing for spying accusations.

I know, I know, it's moral because we're doing it.

[AndyFl]

Opportunity for ETSI

ETSI have produced and managed lots of standards in the past like TETRA. This would be a good chance for them to expand their scope. Most 5G stuff is coming out of 3GPP anyway. Wouldn't be a great leap for ETSI to pick up a lot of the stuff the IEEE are playing with on 5G.

[Anonymous Coward]

You really outclassed yourselves with Trump... Still better then Clinton, but wow, simply wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another control point that needs to be exported.

IANA et all, IEEE - ALL global collaborative mechanisms need to be removed from the US now it is sliding towards being a dictatorship.

That includes reducing the dependency on the US economy and the influence the dollar has on other economies, because any leverage will be abused by a country where the rule of law has all but broken down (if you haven't picked up on that one yet you've been asleep). "America first" always had a subtext of "even if we have to act illegally" but it's become blatant to the point of arrogantly trying to establish that as the new normal.

I'd also put a hard ban on procurement of any telecomms gear that hasn't undergone full security evaluation. Ironically, as Huawei is the only company that has done this, that means Huawei only.

[MudFever]

IEEE President

Would his place of work not cause a problem? @bit.edu.cn

[Roland6]

Re: IEEE President

HE probably used one of his other places of work such as @nagoya-u.ac.jp

[ForthIsNotDead]

Knock yourselves out, America

You're simply revealing to the world what we already knew: You're a fading, bankrupt nation, unable to compete on a level playing field, using the fact that the US dollar is the defacto world currency of exchange to allow you to print trillions is debt, and using the might of the American military to force countries to bend to your will using the threat of military violence.

I say carry on. No really, fill your boots. The more you continue on this path, the more other countries will react against you. America is becoming irrelevant in the world. Isolated due to it's pig-ignorant geo-political stance, and constant war mongery.

People of America: You have my sympathies. Your government is shit. And not just the current one. Pretty much all of them, to be honest. Obama and Reagan being the only notable execptions I can currently muster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Knock yourselves out, America

> People of America: You have my sympathies.

Why would they have your sympathy? They were the ones who voted him in under a system the vast majority of Americans appear to be happy with.