It’s extremely hypocritical of the US to panic when other countries act the same, and sets up a direct and prominent precedent for all counties to ban American tech.
This is pretty disingenuous. You are ignoring a ton of history behind China, its authoritarian nature, and how Chinese companies are far more an extension of the PRC than US companies are of the US Government.
All companies are a threat to the national security of other countries so long as they are beholden to the government they are in. But as others have said, the severity of the threat changes drastically. You can be almost certain that Huawei, via the PRC, would compromise US 5G infrastructure given the chance. You might be reasonably more skeptical of a US company doing the same to another country.
Finally, your Wikipedia link contradicts your own post:
> [The CLOUD Act] provides mechanisms for the companies or the courts to reject or challenge these if they believe the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country the data is stored in.
In fact, there is nothing here that would lead one to believe that the companies can be forced to hand over data on citizens from other countries. The legislation here pertains to the data of US citizens.
In China, the companies are the puppies; in US, the government is the puppy. This is probably a very fundamental difference.
All these mechanics are still there, those agencies are still running. I can’t imagine taking rose colored glasses and think the US and China are that different when the proverbial shit hits the fan.
We're not. People on HN like to rehash the past to bolster their arguments about the present, but they rarely mean anything.
It's like how any time someone mentions Chinese IP theft, someone bring up something about steam engines from 200 years ago. The sins of the fathers ought not be visited upon the sons.
Since historical arguments don't work for you here's proof of Australia bugging one of the poorest nations on Earth in the midst of an oil trade deal and passing along the information to a huge. The minister in charge at the time now works for that company with a very lucrative salary.
The only reason we know this is because a high ranking agent first complained internally about limited resources being diverted away from anti-terror work in Indonesia. He then complained to the Intel Ombudsman and was again ignored. Then he went public. He's now had a trial going on for a decade, his lawyer is also being tried for taking on the case.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/prosecution-of-witne...
This idea only works if all parties believe in it. I don't think the majority of people on this planet believe groups should be able to go on economic crime sprees that affect large swathes of populations then allow rich offspring to live comfortably with zero economic consequences.
I can see why this would be a desirable outcome for some but this feedback loop needs to remain intact to stop shenanigans.
But my argument is not about distant past.
I think the US is not caught into widespread IT theft and other public scandals partly because it has experienced agencies with good operational knowledge.
And partly because no one has been pushing the US enough to get into overt intelectual “war” against a country, but I feel we’re getting closer everyday. The day a country gets enough ahead of the US, we’ll get back to a public “us vs them” stance with stealing IP from that country becoming basically a patriotic feat, because you know, they’re the “ennemy”.
After all we've learned about NSA spying, I find it amazing when Americans go on about Chinese spying, especially given that Huawei, as yet, has not been caught spying on its customers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-...
In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure.
So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
> So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
The US should provide evidence for whatever claims it makes about Huawei. All there is, at the moment, is evidence-free innuendo. You don't use the power of the state to destroy a major company on the basis of pure speculation.
The Bloomberg claim of a backdoor, which you linked, is even more absurd. The "backdoor" was Telnet, which Huawei used during the initial configuration of the Vodafone equipment. Vodafone said to Bloomberg, "There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that Huawei conceals backdoors in its equipment."