IEEE Bans Huawei From Peer-Reviewing Papers, Chinese Scientists Quit To Protest (sciencemag.org) 172
New submitter AntiBrainWasher writes: Running away from the fear of legal/political persecution, the New York City-based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) told editors of its roughly 200 journals yesterday that it feared "severe legal implications" from continuing to use Huawei scientists as reviewers in vetting technical papers. They can continue to serve on IEEE editorial boards, according to the memo, but "cannot handle any papers" until the sanctions are lifted. The IEEE ban has sparked outrage among Chinese scientists on social media. "I joined IEEE as a Ph.D. student because it is recognized as an International academic platform in electronics engineering," wrote Haixia (Alice) Zhang of Peking University in Beijing in a letter to IEEE leadership. "But this message is challenging my professional integrity. I have decided to quit the editorial boards [of two IEEE journals] until it restores our common professional integrity."
Meanwhile, the SD and Wi-Fi Alliance reinstated Huawei as a member, less than a week after they quietly removed the company from its membership list. Despite the lack of evidences, U.S. officials have alleged that the Chinese government could use equipment manufactured by Huawei, which is a global supplier of cellphones and wireless data networks, to spy on users or disrupt critical infrastructure, similar to what the NSA has done.
Meanwhile, the SD and Wi-Fi Alliance reinstated Huawei as a member, less than a week after they quietly removed the company from its membership list. Despite the lack of evidences, U.S. officials have alleged that the Chinese government could use equipment manufactured by Huawei, which is a global supplier of cellphones and wireless data networks, to spy on users or disrupt critical infrastructure, similar to what the NSA has done.
Bye Felicia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about whatever a companies hardware/firmware allows for spying in secrecy.
Not the completely unrelated topic you bring up.
Lack of evidence = TOTAL CHICOM BULLSHIT (Score:1)
Not to mention their history / ownership. I mean come the fuck on. [slashdot.org] It's not like Huawei was unfairly maligned as the propagandists would have you believe.
Re: (Score:1)
"but not related to the reason they claim the ban if Huawei is for." - Well, that's legally false but I don't want to kick your ass over it, lol. Your history of fraud and such crimes, theft, poaching, concealment, that speaks to motives.
Huawei is not clean, is the point. Absolutely I agree with you that at some point Huawei's criminal concealments should be laid bare for all to see. That's NOT how real shit works in security with 10% market share, best SOP practices.
We have to wait to see the final goo
Re: (Score:3)
But it is separate. The claim is that Huawei gear has wiretaps and backdoors built in. Nobody who says there is evidence ever links an article outlining any evdience of wiretaps and backdoors built in Huawei gear. it's like if the claim is that a guy raped your sister so you bring up evidence like "but he robbed a bank!" or "he killed my neighbors dog!". Sure, those say he's a bad guy, but neither of them are evidence that he raped your sister, and bringing them up as the evidence only makes it *look* like
Re: (Score:2)
... to cut to he chase. if we're worried that "bad people" run corporations then we should more or less stop buying any products, not just Huawei. See for example coca-cola and trade unionist murders in Colombia.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... In fact when people loudly claim "but teh evidence!" and cite completely unrelated articles, that itself is evidence that they spent quite some effort looking for evidence, but found nothing. It only serves as evidence to confirm the lack of any gun or even smoke.
Re: "Lack of evidence"?!?!? (Score:1)
No Chinese company is privately controlled, per Chinese law.
Re: (Score:1)
Yahoo [qz.com], Sequoia Capital [sequoiacap.com] and SoftBank [sbcvc.com] don't agree with you. And if you think (US version of) private ownership can protect a private company from the pawn of a powerful government, Google et. al. [xda-developers.com] disagree with you.
CALLING ALL HACKINGBEARS! HACKINGBEAR DO YOU READ? (Score:1)
Hackingbear you are summoned by the grand imperial faggot of China to defend the Communist Party's many facets and companies from western detection! Remember hackingbear, your mother is dangling over a hot pot as we speak!
Your propaganda must defend China's good name as a safe, fair country of well-enforced laws and nothing else! Certainly no history of espionage or authoritarian autocracy and totalitarianism. Remember - China friendly, China gooood.
Say it like the Party requires of you - OR YOUR MOTHER IS
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitalists will sell us a rope we'll hang them with"
V. I. Lenin.
People really out to read relevant material on ideology involved before suggesting evidence that is simply worthless for the case they're making.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the Chinese Government, not Huawei.
What's the difference?
US is claiming that a private Chinese company is in cahoots with the Chinese government
They all are. The party controls all.
and sanctioned it without providing evidence.
There is allegedly classified evidence [reuters.com] relating to some of the charges. I would also like to see some evidence, but unlike you, I would not be surprised by it. I used to work for an IC design firm which did contract work for lots of the big names, over twenty years ago, and back then there were whole companies which did nothing but reverse-engineer ICs designed by people in other countries, solely for the purpose of manufacturing counterfeits. Some
Re: (Score:1)
What, you can't take this general pattern established? It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with government.
Re: (Score:2)
It's totally fine with me because they're doing it in the South China Sea. Wake me up when they build island in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sea of Azov (Score:3, Interesting)
Huawei are not China, but if you're saying that the trade war is not about trade, then yep. China's island is an attack on the sovereignty of the Pacific nations.
You're ignore the invasion of Ukraine, the annexing of the Crimea, sealing off the sea of Azov... all while Trump was REMOVING SANCTIONS against Putin & Manasfort connected Oligarch Oleg Deripaska. He's the one who got the election briefings from Manasfort, and is the link to Putin.
Oleg Deripaska (really Putin) then promises Mitch McConnell an
Re: Sea of Azov (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're suggesting that things like theft of high tech that is used for military applications is not a matter of national security?
The sheer amount of spin on the China stories lately has been astounding in its absurdity.
Re: Sea of Azov (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So much this is not a political issue, that Trump himself has said he will lift the ban if China makes commercial concessions to the US. As if those would dispel all the alleged issues of security.
It's still political. Like in NAFTA 2.0, the commercial concessions that he would accept would probably will not result in any sort of economic justification or result in making back the money we have lost in the meanwhile. This trade war is not about any sort of actual economic reasoning but so Trump can claim a "WIN" on a bullet point sound bite.
Russia, China, Trump (Score:3)
All the myths about Trump being a Russian agent, or pro-Russia are belied both by his policies, as well as the personnel he has around him. Like when he started, he had people like Tillerson and Flynn, but now he has Pompeo and Bolton - both anti-Russia hawks. Similarly on policy - he has been arming Ukraine to the teeth, opposing Russian interests in Syria, trying to get Germany to cancel the Nordstream pipeline from St Petersburg to the German coast, and on the elections front, there was a cyberattack l
I'm not sure I like that... (Score:3)
It's a bit of a "Dr. Fu Manchu" movie plot.
I distrust many many companies, but not always their employees
Re:Trump says "China bad!", so China must be good? (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to analyze why Huawei is under attack.
What is it the Americans really want? This doesn't feel like part of the recent trade negotiation strategy (if you call it that) that the US is using. Indeed, the Huawei issue, in some form or another, predates the Chinese trade "squabble" by a significant margin. The Huawei issue started with US and other Western countries alleging that Huawei was implanting Chinese back doors into their products. The US is bringing some really intense pressure to bear on Huawei, including using my country (Canada) as a weapon, something I don't much appreciate.
Now, the US accusing Huawei of implanting back doors is a bit rich, seeing as this has been a tactic of the United States for a very long time. A la Cisco, a la RSA Labs, a la NIST. These are just some of the ones we know about. I think the real issue here is the exact opposite of Huawei intentionally inserting back doors. I think the real issue is that Huawei has been resistant to putting in back doors for Google (slash the US slash five eyes). It makes sense in a perverse way if you think about it. I want someone to steal information for me, so I accuse them of stealing information for someone else publicly and privately tell them that accusation goes away when they do what I want. I then bring other pressure to bear, trade pressures, legal pressures, absolutely as much of it as I can. Against them, their family, their friends, everyone. And if they reveal what the real pressure is, if they reveal what I'm really asking them to do (that I'm trying to get them to steal information for me), then publicly I laugh and say "now they are just trying to distract from the fact they are stealing information for someone else".
So, you see, it's really the one thing that makes sense. When look at it while asking the question "what does the act of accusing Huawei of putting in back doors prevent them from revealing?" then the answer is obvious. Accusing them of putting in back doors for someone else effectively pulls their teeth and prevents them from credibly being able to accuse the US of trying to get them to do that very thing for them.
I'll tell you what. As long as this continues, Huawei will be my top choice for phone vendor. If the US is raising this much of a stink, they are likely the safest thing going to prevent NSA listening.
LEARN TO READ DOGEATER FAGGOT (Score:1, Informative)
https://qz.com/1535995/the-full-list-of-crimes-huawei-is-accused-of-committing-by-the-us/
13 counts brought in the Eastern District of New York state:
(1) and (2) Conspiracy to commit bank fraud: Between around November 2007 to May 2015, Huawei, Skycom, and Meng Wanzhou allegedly conspired to defraud “US Subsidiary 1,” a subsidiary of a global financial institution identified only as “Financial Institution 1,” by misrepresenting Huawei’s relationship with Skycom to clear more tha
Re: (Score:1)
"The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery, or violence) rather than their company’s alleged malfeasance. Yes, corporate managers should be held to account for their company’s malfeasance, up to and including criminal charges; but to start this practice with a leading Chinese businessperson is a stunning provocation to the Chi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump says "China bad!", so China must be good? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well put and I agree, but the pressure is ramping up to the point where my preferences for Huawei products may be irrelevant. A bit of a paradox: The more Huawei gets scrutinized as a possible security risk, the more trustworthy the company is forced to become--but it doesn't matter if the wannabe customers can't find any Huawei products in the stores.
Back on the original topic of the story, I was a member of the IEEE for about 20 years. I was even quite an active member, officially a senior referee, when I left the States. After some years abroad, I concluded that the "I" part was a joke and I switched to the ACM. Was a member of ACM for 10 years before concluding it was also too local, so I dropped out. (And no, I wasn't in China at any time during that quarter century (though I did visit Hong Kong once while it was still part of the Empire).)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to analyze why Huawei is under attack.
Because they are miles ahead of American companies in terms of 5G infrastructure and America is worried they will not be in the running for a technological development that could had hundreds of billions in GDP over it's rollout?
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you personally do not care about these things, an unlocked bootloader would allow users to to deep dive into their system and investigate what type of data are being accessed by Huawei's system processes and where this data is being send.
I'm
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your argument is that recently Trump has said that the Huawei issue could be resolved through the issue being added to the trade talks. If it was really about spying and putting in backdoors then it couldn't be resolved through the trade talks. With that statement he admitted that the whole thing has really been about trade all of this time.
From the article [ft.com]:
Speaking at the White House on Thursday as US financial markets suffered a new day of losses stemming from trade tensions with China, M
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with yours is that it makes the assumption that A) Trump knows what he's talking about, and B) Trump is telling the truth and it's not just more white noise.
If it's about putting in back doors, and the US has gone to the lengths that it appears they have, do you really think they are just going to come out and say "Trade talks won't settle this because it's about something else entirely and we aren't going to tell you what".
Re:Trump says "China bad!", so China must be good? (Score:4, Insightful)
orangrmangoodyellowmanbad is also silly and this cold war with China and with the Chinese people is ridiculous and offensive too. The Chinese are not evil and they are not trying to hurt America or Americans. As always they will copy something if they see an idea they like, but I have no problem with that. It is the very broken to the point of absurdity patent system that I have a problem with.
This quasi war footing with China and its billions of people cannot lead anywhere good. I just hope that more countries refuse to go along with the anti-Chinese hysteria. The UK at least despite being one of our closest allies has been sensible in this matter. As has Germany and France afaik. This is starting to turn into something more than just a trade war. It is starting to get scary. I would not want to be a Chinese person or even someone who looks Chinese in the US right now. I haven't seen this sort of warlike attitude since the 80s and it isn't only China. Russia too is now seen as an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
As always they will copy something if they see an idea they like, but I have no problem with that.
Then either you live in China, or have no idea what you are talking about. The rest of the world is not okay with copying. It's an international crime for a reason - it destroys companies and hurts industries.
Companies spend years and millions of dollars on R&D. When a Chinese company "copies" it, they don't pay royalties to the company that made the design. Their copies are often cheaper and less reliable. (Examples: replacing metal with plastic, using lead, replacing a part with a lower spec part
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you are missing is that I don't see anything special about creating a design. I don't think that just being first gives you a right to any sort of special protection. If someone else can make the same product more cheaply then you are screwed. It seems fair to me. If I had a business plan that relied on special protection from being first and that would fail without it I would try a different plan.
As far as the copied design being of inferior quality if that is true usually end users will reali
Re: (Score:3)
I think what you are missing is that I don't see anything special about creating a design
Then let me show you:
I've worked on projects that cost $500 million in R&D. I think the final product cost about $500k ($0.5 million) in parts and labor to build each unit. Suppose that the company sells it for $2 million each. ($2 million revenue - $0.5 million each unit = $1.5 million profit each unit.) At that rate, they break even after 333 units. ($500 million R&D cost / $1.5 million net revenue each unit ~= 333 parts.) It is not uncommon for it to take 10 years to sell that many of them.
The reason (Score:2, Informative)
The reason given by the US Government for imposing the export restrictions is an allegation of conducting illegal trade with Iran, not allegations of spying.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/21/2019-10616/addition-of-entities-to-the-entity-list
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The USA doesn't have things like the Great Firewall, IP theft, and the US does not prevent people from talking about things like Tienanmen Square, democracy, free speech, etc. Therefore, it is perfectly alright for the NSA to be engaged with spying upon people's computers/networks. They're just trying to stop terrorism and prevent wars from starting. The NSA would never use the data for nefarious purposes.
Re: (Score:1)
They're just trying to stop terrorism and prevent wars from starting.
Hahahah...OMG. Stop it, you're killing me!
These guys do almost nothing other than trying to start civil wars all over the world so they can replace legitimate governments with puppet regimes.
They've been doing almost nothing else since their inception!
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, how many millions of Syrians, Venezuelans, Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians etc. etc. etc. have had their life destroyed by these assholes?
Hmmm...what have all of these countries got in common?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
The US government doesn't even hide it anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Program
Thanks for those hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians and millions of Syrian refugees!
Oh yeah, they don't count because...America!
Re: Bad move (Score:1)
Nonsense. Resigning in protest is a very American tradition and to be respected.
The damage is done. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ban of Huawei will be known as the decisive event that caused the USA to lose the information technology leadership. Nobody will trust the US anymore, not just the Chinese. It's not just that US technology has become a risk factor due to possible political supply chain interventions. It's also highly likely that the US is doing the exact same things that it accuses Huawei of doing.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The ban of Huawei will be known as the decisive event that caused the USA to lose the information technology leadership. Nobody will trust the US anymore, not just the Chinese. It's not just that US technology has become a risk factor due to possible political supply chain interventions. It's also highly likely that the US is doing the exact same things that it accuses Huawei of doing.
Nobody trusts the Chinese already, and for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
All chineses distrusts the chinese? What a concept!
It's worrisome what learned folk can do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the SD and Wi-Fi Alliance reinstated Huawei as a member, less than a week after they quietly removed the company from its membership list. Despite the lack of evidences, U.S. officials have alleged that the Chinese government could use equipment manufactured by Huawei, which is a global supplier of cellphones and wireless data networks, to spy on users or disrupt critical infrastructure..
To make matters worse, the mere fact that some despotic fella can allege stuff, present no evidence, and have learned folk simply believe then later act in whichever way, is really worrisome.
Does anyone notice the "could" , even though there's evidence of CISCO having been collaborating in planting bugs to be exploited by some 3-letter agency..?
Re: (Score:2)
If the bugs are in Cisco's code then they are in Huawei's code and that tells you everything you need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the take away from this is Huawei isn't playing ball with Uncle Sam. Like oh perhaps *not* backdooring their products?
Re: (Score:2)
It's worrisome what learned folk can do...
Learned means intellectual. Intellectual people aren't necessarily intelligent, they just filled their heads with large quantities of irrelevant information.
This is how China wins (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China isn't the dominant power in anything. People used to say that about the Japanese in the 80s. China is just cheap factories and labor for the West.
Re: (Score:3)
Check out stuff on how Shenzhen is doing nowadays. They are way more than just the cheap factory of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that about a fifth of the whole human species lives there
China fucked that up for themselves by making kids illegal, though I guess they have a better chance of turning it around than the Western countries that did the same social engineering in a more subtle way
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese Scientists Quit To Protest (Score:1)
Good riddance.
WTF is going on? (Score:2)
AT&T just disconnected me from the data networ (Score:2)
Customer support said Huawei phones no longer welcome.
"Despite the lack of evidences" (Score:2)
'evidences'???? Bwahaha! Better go back to your buxiban teacher and demand your 5 yuan back.
A blow to the image of IEEE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A blow to the image of IEEE (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to move these standards orgs out of the US, or just replace them with new ones. The legal situation in the US has been deteriorating for decades now, ever since 2001 really. Problems with visas, people being arrested when they go there, NSA interference and now this.
Somewhere extremely neutral like Switzerland or Iceland would be an option. Move the conferences around as the legal situation requires.
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't. As usual people are glancing at the story and making up all the details in their head based on how they think it happened rather than why it actually happened.
There are laws which make it illegal to export certain information. IEEE has decided some of the information in the research papers may contain that export restricted information so it has banned itself from exporting that info to the people it's illegal to export to. This is the only move they can make unless you what the organization de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just following order. Where have I heard that one before?
The original post still stands. If the organization was in another country this wouldn't have happened. Besides there was no need to stop sharing all information with them. The IEEE gets papers from all over the world. They only had to stop sharing papers originating in the US to comply with the order. Besides, sometimes a journalist has to go to jail to defend the right thing if they truly care about their work.
the worst part of US world domination is (Score:1)
... not the US dollar being imposed as the base currency for all international transactions and trade.
It's that the US owns / controls the internet and all the core technologies around it.
And with the UK going always hand-in-hand with the US, this also means ARM and hence the vast majority of mobile devices.
Relevant Post (Score:2)
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Got to love stuff like this:
(8) Conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): The act gives the president authority to address extraordinary threats to US national security, foreign policy, or the economy. The US has declared Iran such a threat using this act, most recently in March 2018, leading OFAC to prohibit the export from the US or by a US person of goods, technology and services to Iran without its permission. Between November 2007 and November 2014, Huawei, Skycom a
They quit because the communist party requires it. (Score:2)