Hacker News Reader

Comment by anfilt | Hacker News Reader

err that applys to any company/organization in any country. You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.

If anything IEEE was too quick to move, but I am not their legal team.

View on HN

My guess is that most of restrictions on Huawei will be rolled back within a relative short period. However the damage this has done to America's reputation will stand for a long time and will impact some major strategic decisions not only in China but also in Europe.

The extension given to Huawei is due in August 19. My bet is that Huawei will be given another 3 month extension, which will line up with November presidential elections. After the election they will reach an agreement.

Disregard my last speculation, elections are in 2020, not 2019.

US law says that an Ericsson 5G researcher from Sweden cannot have his paper reviewed by a Huawei employee, who could be the most knowledgeable expert in the sub-domain.

Justifying this kind of unjust law is like saying Google should comply with Chinese censorship request to suppress dissent opinions in Sweden.

> US law says that an Ericsson 5G researcher from Sweden cannot have his paper reviewed by a Huawei employee

I think the news is that it doesn't, but also that some lawyer thought it might.

The IEEE is (in this role, at least) a scientific press. They should have, and assume, a strong 1st amendment protection in pursuing that goal. The fact that they didn't assume this -- and then had to subsequently reverse their policy once the lawyers weighed in -- is pretty damning to the leadership of the organization.

Any meddling by any other country would have not had the same effect.

What you are saying is that, because of the pervasiveness of US tech, all organizations having US a companies as members are at risk.

Time for the world to route around this single point of failure.

>You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.

Firstly, which law would they have been breaking if they had not blocked Huawei, given the subsequent guidance they have been given?

And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.

> Firstly, which law would they have been breaking if they had not blocked Huawei, given the subsequent guidance they have been given?

Well, they seem to have reversed the restrictions; but it's not crazy for their lawyers to hold things up a bit while they figure out if what they're doing could land them in trouble. As an IEEE member, I kinda expect them to be a bit careful about breaking the law.

> And secondly, which universe do you inhabit? Companies and organisations break the law and get away with it in this one with monotonous regularity.

So you're saying that... corporations, including non-profits, should knowingly risk violating the law because... sometimes corporations get away with small fines for doing similar? I don't get it. I also don't get why you're being so hostile.

I don't know the specofics.about the US, but other countries have legal means to take government dwxisions to court and - depending on the issue - a least force a delay on the order until the court decision has been reached. I would be surprised if the US had no such mechanism to defend against illegal or unjust executive orders.

The US does have such a mechanism. There are requirements to be eligible to start that court case and requirements a judge is supposed to examine before they delay the executive decision. I'm guessing some of those requirements weren't satisfied here.

This is with reference to illegal orders. As for unjust orders that happen to be allowed by the applicable laws, that's not a situation the courts can remedy.

> You just can’t break a countries laws and hope to get away with it.

As an outsider, have they? Have they actually been convicted of anything relevant in US courts?

I think it's reasonable for a company to react as if they are currently breaking a law even if they are unsure. I'm not saying this is what IEEE did, but in general if leadership thinks a certain activity _may_ possibly be breaking a law but they are not certain, suspending that activity is probably the right move.

Should it apply to nominally international bodies, which happen to be headquartered in a specific country, but which do not derive any specific benefits from being so headquartered, it being just an accident of history that the international membership first came together there?

It’d be like saying that the Swiss government has sway over the International Criminal Court. Seems strange.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com