You mean like the CIA and the NSA?
American spy agencies may reduce their "ability to share the most sensitive types of intelligence" with the UK if Huawei continues to be a major presence in British telcos' networks, a US senator warned Parliament. Speaking to a Parliamentary sub-committee dedicated to 5G and national security, Tom Cotton, an American senator …
"Why are you so eager to let a criminal organisation's representative speak to a Parliamentary sub-committee? I'm speaking, let me finish. Organisations whose technology is being used to repress millions of their own people in their own country, a serial sanctions bully, a known network spy. Why would you be so eager to hear this man speak?"
"American spy agencies may reduce their "ability to share the most sensitive types of intelligence" with the UK if Huawei continues to be a major presence in British telcos' networks, a US senator warned Parliament."
I'm guessing that's because they can't hack Huawei.
It's also worrying that, in another news piece, he said the new F35 aircraft will be withheld from the UK as a 5G network using Huawei poses a security risk to them. If the latest aircraft are such an easy hacking target, I don't want them anywhere near our airspace.
>he said the new F35 aircraft will be withheld from the UK as a 5G network using Huawei poses a security risk to them. If the latest aircraft are such an easy hacking target.
I read that as implying the F35's need a 5G connection - pilotless operation? - given we are talking about US military then that will be an unencrypted unauthenticated IPv4 service...
"I'm guessing that's because they can't hack Huawei."
No. It's because Cisco hates Huawei, and Cisco has better lobbyists; they lead the world in telecom lobbyism.
It's true that the NSA must have a direct line to the backdoors in Cisco kit, but Huawei has to provide backdoors like any other supplier, wherever governments require it, which is basically everywhere.
As we have known for several years, this whole campaign is only a protectionist beat-up.
That's the same Senator Tom Cotton who is keen to have the US military on the streets and show protesters 'no mercy?' What a psycho.
Icon: Armageddon it, coz Tom Cotton is not gettin' it.
He's certainly all in on Trumpism - in the last week on twitter he's said military should be involved in quelling the protests and he's introduced a bill with another of the most stupid/right wing senators (Blackburn) to ban any Chinese national student receiving a visa to study STEM in US campus.
Scary thing is he's not fringe - looks to be gearing up for a 2024 run.
He's certainly all in on Trumpism - in the last week on twitter he's said military should be involved in quelling the protests
And isn't this precisely the reason for the second amendment? The right to bear arms against a repressive government? The NRA should be all in on the protests then!
There's no real need to take Tom Cotton seriously at the moment as Congress isn't usually involved in arms sales, only procurement. But it's nevertheless instructive about how the US will conduct trade negotiations with the UK, where Congress will be involved. So, to the list of chlorinated chicked, higher prescription charges, privatised healthcare you can now add shoddy telecommunications technology with backdoors.
And isn't this precisely the reason for the second amendment? The right to bear arms against a repressive government
As I understand it, the second amendment is there to guarantee “the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state”, and was made because the United States, at the time, could not afford a military of its own. Quite critical thing to have when you’re trying to do battle with an expansionist empire, whilst at the same time trying to take land off of people who’d quite like it if you buggered off and left them to their own devices, thank you very much.
The idea that it does double duty to support "rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression” is plainly nonsense since, in the first case, if guns are not freely available (particularly military weaponry) then you have less danger to defend yourself from (contrast gun crime in the US with gun crime in the UK) and, in the second case, the State has access to aircraft, a navy, missiles, bombs and even bigger guns - so good luck resisting oppression with your rifle, no matter how powerful it is.
It’s an inconvenient truth that the NRA would rather you forgot that the second amendment is an anachronism which is useful only to criminals and hillbillies.
The real resistance to oppression is peaceful protest - which is why Trump is unfazed by a mass-shooting but craps his pants at marches against him, civil disobedience and breaking of curfew - even when the protestors are unarmed.
I think you're wrong. Sure, political change can happen that way - Russia and France being the most prominent poster children - but do you really want to end up with what either of them got?
But it can happen non-violently too. Britain transformed from an aristocracy to a democracy, over the course of about 80 years, without a revolution. India became independent without a war. The Soviet Union fell because soldiers refused to fight their own people. Violence is not the only way.
"Britain transformed from an aristocracy to a democracy, over the course of about 80 years, without a revolution"
Excuse my limited english history, but I understood that y'all outsourced the scaring the shit out of the aristocracy by chopping heads off part, to the french, and reaped the benefit. There was a revolution, it just got held somewhere else.
The French and the Russians paid the price, and the rest of us reaped the benefits of a ruling class that suddenly thought that letting us have some scraps from the table wasn't such a bad idea after all.
OK, let's say that's true. (Debatable of course, but let's accept it as written.) What difference does it make?
If "the example of other countries" can be as salutary as home grown violence, the conclusion is the same - violence is still not the only way to get the political change you want. I'd go further: it's also not the best way. (Unless you really want despotism, of course.) Violence polarises. What you need is reconciliation.
I'm sure the shades of all those who lost their lives in the English Civil War (1640s to early 1650s) are happy to know that their sacrifice was for nothing.
That's the problem with spoon-feeding kids "everything they need to know" at school - you never learn to question what you are told, to critically evaluate it, to seek out answers to what they do NOT tell you.
It wasn't 80 years of non-violence that changed things, it was years of violence and bloodshed and the desire to prove that nobody has "the god-given right" to rule others that transformed Britain from a monarchy to a democracy - as long as you count only landowners being allowed to vote as a 'democracy'.
The civil war didn't make England a democracy, it didn't even move it close. It did neuter the (previously, abnormally strong) centralised monarchy. But when the dust of counter-revolution settled, what was left was aristocracy - power firmly in the hands of a hereditary ruling class.
What made it a democracy was a series of reform acts, from the 1830s onwards, extending the franchise. In parallel with changes in education and the acceptance of pluralism, of course.
I do not support any of the violence or looting either, but you're right that historically, it is effective. There already have been peaceful protests & marches before this, but that's not very newsworthy.
Everyone's attention perked up as soon as they became not-so-peaceful. I don't agree with it, but it does work. However watching the videos from Hong Kong, I will say we Americans could learn some things from them.
"in the second case, the State has access to aircraft, a navy, missiles, bombs and even bigger guns - so good luck resisting oppression with your rifle, no matter how powerful it is."
The people with their hands on those military weapons are also "the people" and may choose to not come down on the side of the repressive government. Some will, some won't. That's how civil wars start. It's just Joe bloggs and his semi-automatic rifle against well trained, well armed government forces. Just be glad you are not called Will or you may be fired at.
The people with their hands on those military weapons are also "the people" and may choose to not come down on the side of the repressive government.
Good luck using military aircraft, vessels or missiles systems without a support crew. True, there might be a full on revolt, Potemkin style, in which case you’re golden but…
…there’s still no reason to sell working military weapons to civilians (or, I’d argue, at all. But I’m a whinging liberal pacifist).
First, I should correct my text. It should have read "It's not just Joe bloggs and his semi-automatic rifle". Secondly, yes, a lot of that military hardware is unable without the the full support crews. That applies to both sides. And then don't forget that the National Guard is controlled by each State Governor and are general;y citizens of that State. They have some pretty neat kit too. The Air National Guard is both Federal and State controlled. They also have some neat kit. I very much doubt it would ever come to actual civil war, but don't think that it can't happen and that "the people" and/or States would be well armed to take on "loyalist" Federal Forces or other States forces.
Not forgetting, of course, State and City Armouries, well stocked with things up to missiles and tanks. It's not that long ago someone in the military drove off in a tank around city streets causing mayhem. There's no need to sell military grade weapons to Joe Public when the military and National Guard *ARE* Joe Public too,
Something that many protestors seem to forget is that the police are also "the people", too.
If the protestors are really that anti-police, maybe the police should pull back and let the rioters have their way for a few days. I suspect the results might be somewhat different to what most of the protestors really want.
Wait? What? So America doesn’t have our best interests at heart after all? It wants to ride roughshod over what our elected Government wants to do? And this is better than what we had when in Europe, where we had a vote and we weren’t being pulled left and right and every which way in order to beg scraps from the big boys table?
Wake up! This is the real world of Brexit. So thanks any treasonous Brexiteers who read this. You really f’d us. You’ve done irreparable damage to this country - I hope you’re proud. And yes, I know that my language could be more considered. More polite. But America is descending into fascism, is undermining free-speech and sending the troops against peaceful protestors, all at the behest of a tin-pot dictator. And we’re supposed to attach our cart to that horse? F that S! Now is not the time to be nice. Now is the time to be angry. And if you aren’t angry, with Trump, with Cotton, with the Republican party and its enablers on both sides of the Atlantic, if you aren’t angry with Boris, with Farage, with Mogg, with the whole sorry racist shower then you are part of the problem.
I was looking for a possible comment to add my Brexit thoughts, here I found it. I wish all Brexited Brits all the best with trading and collaboration on any subject with Uncle $am. You'll need it and you'll get nottin butt shit/shat on. Britain is just the UK and The British Empire is a thought/thing of the past. You can try to collaborate with all peoples in the Commonwealth, but my thougth would be that even the Commonwealth would be better off with the UK firmly working together with EU and have a vote on the worldstage instead of being voted on by the rest of the world.
Still I wish all the Brits all the best because I like British style and stuff.
shut up, I am speaking !!!!
"You can try to collaborate with all peoples in the Commonwealth, but my thougth would be that even the Commonwealth would be better off with the UK firmly working together with EU and have a vote on the worldstage instead of being voted on by the rest of the world."
Many of our Commonwealth trade partners got shat on when we joined the EU. They may not care too much to offer any sort of advantageous trade deals with the "mother country".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't mean other Commonwealth countries might be spiteful. Just that they have no reason to favour the UK. As you say, things have changed a lot in 40 years and those countries no longer feel the same loyalty nor the need to trade with the UK because they have already filled the gap left 40 years ago.
Almost, the Huawei/F35 is nothing to do with Brext.
All you can be certain of is that the US is keen to screw the UK over as much as possible and extract all the money it can.
At some point the US is going to realise that it cannot continue to bully the rest of the world in the way it currently does. The unfortunate thing is that a spat military between the US and China is going to bugger up everyone. At the moment they appear to be rapidly heading down that route and perversely I think China holds the aces. This makes the US even more unpredictable.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I think Mr Cotton lives on another planet... last time I looked the number telelecom equipments was low... somewhere around 5 : Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Huawei and ZTE. ( I'm not counting the Japanese, as they barely exist beyond Japan )
So 2 out of 5 are Chinese, 1 is Korean and the last two are Europeans... The American choice is limited.
And that's exactly why they keep on about the economic security of it and how Huawei is such a threat to their economic security.
For some reason my auto correct keeps replacing "national security" with "economic security" as I was writing the above. I'll have to get an MP to look into it :D
There is nothing more lowering or distasteful than mocking someone's name --- particularly foreigners' names.
Doesn't 'Tom Cotton' sound like some old buck with a shock of snow-white hair who acts as an advertising shill for those Mississippi gambling paddle-steamers; acting as a greeter and barker on the entrance all lit up with sparkly many-coloured lightbulbs, wishing good luck to each eager rube ?
After withdrawing the F35s from their convenient European ground base, we'll see our "friends" asking us to share two large aircraft carriers to provide a platform for their planes.
I think the fear that BT street cabinets will sip the secrets of their lanyards might be a tad far fetched.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020