Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonysdg | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, this strikes me as a bit of FUD. And also fairly low on the totem pole of "things the DNC should be warning candidates about".

I'd rank any or all of these higher:

- Don't open email attachments

- Use a strong password + 2FA

- Turn on automatic updates

- Don't run your own email/web server, contract it out to the pros

- Vet your donors, especially if they're dropping big bucks in return for "access"

- If you ain't comfy with it being on the front page of the Times/WSJ/CNN/Fox/Breitbart/HuffPo/NPR/InfoWars/RT/Youtube, don't (1) send it in an email, (2) say it at a campaign event, (3) include it in an SMS, (4) really consider it at all.

Same goes for the RNC and any aspiring politician, to be honest. But worrying that the Chinese or Russians have installed backdoors in a ZTE or Huawai phone? Eh, they've got easier and more precise ways to hack your stuff.

View on HN

I would take this as 'honest FUD' in that they believe it. The same story reported on the Verge[0] which sums up my take on it.

> These two Chinese companies have been singled out [...] possible ties to Beijing. In 2012, the US House Intelligence Committee named Huawei and [...] ZTE as serious risks [...] claiming that their devices could...

> It’s worth noting that the DNC is likely not working off any new information here, but that organizers may be on high alert for any potential security threats after Russian military officials hacked the committee in 2016.

No nothing really new here, other than the renewed fear.

  [0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17649920/dnc-democrats-huawei-zte-devices-ban-china-hacking-threat

> - If you ain't comfy with it being on the front page of the Times/WSJ/CNN/Fox/Breitbart/HuffPo/NPR/InfoWars/RT/Youtube, don't (1) send it in an email, (2) say it at a campaign event, (3) include it in an SMS, (4) really consider it at all.

If you're an engineer, then that goof advise. If you're doing something that would cause you trouble if it were public, depending on what it is, you might be close to the line of things you shouldn't be doing.

If you're a politician, you job is image management. Even simply emails on how to present yourself to an audience can come across as you being "fake or phony" and negatively impact you. The standards aren't remotely the same.

It’s not FUD. The manufacturers are aligned with PRC interests, and they are our adversary.

They are not anyone's adversary and the USA is not at war. International trade is a zero sum game. It's either win-win or its lose-lose. Trumpian phobic anti Chinese rhetoric is driving to lose-lose.

By all means stoke the anti Chinese hysterical atmosphere but don't expect to be taken seriously.

ZTE and Huawei devices are fine. 2FA and corporate solutions not homebrew is all the DNC needs.

> ZTE and Huawei devices are fine.

Because you know more than US intelligence agencies?

All of the issues with ZTE and hauwei which have been shown to have substantial merit relate to trade concerns over corporate governance. The claims there are state actor backdoors being exploited is completely unproven. The claims relate overwhelmingly to transmission equipment. In that regard, the equipment demonstrated to have backdoors is juniper and cisco, both of whom did it at the behest of US agencies.

ZTE may well have had factory installed malware, so does Lenovo. So do lots of things.

> International trade is a zero sum game.

What do you mean by this? And How does it relate to your broader point?

International trade demands that both sides exchange value. If you are made to buy in US dollars, you wind up having to spend them. The place you spend them is in the USA. So, stopping people in China from selling you things stops Chinese investors having US dollars to invest in spending for US goods and services and financial investment.

Also, it's well understood that if you beggar your neighbour by making the goods he makes and the goods you make, you can't exchange your goods for his goods: international trade really does work better when you let both sides maximise their value into the trade. Simply taking their raw goods or blockading their cheaper products just doesn't work.

So trade is not adversarial. It's mutual. By definition. Across one financial year, one presidential term, one tax reconciliation, for one company? Sure you can exploit an assymetrical relationship. You are just 'shitting in the nest' for everyone else.

What do you think the Chinese do with all the US dollars they earn? Burn them?

The confusion was that you were not using the term "zero-sum game" correctly. It's the exact opposite.

Haha! Nothing like half learned knowledge eh!

Ya I think this is called a positive-sum game.

Btw, "It's either win-win or its lose-lose." is the opposite of a zero-sum game.

> - Vet your donors, especially if they're dropping big bucks in return for "access"

That would completely undermine the current system that they (almost all US politicians at a state/national level) have worked hard to create.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com