|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 25, 2023 20:45:41 GMT
Off on a tangent we go……. Sanctions are really bad for business. In time the US sanctions will destroy the US economy. What we need to do is practice free trade, because if we do then other countries will trust us, buy our products and generally be friends. Meanwhile Duncan-Smith the other day was out on the streets with some anarchist protestors insulting China. That man is toxic. As Max said, these people have to go. Rishi needs to pull the party back to sensible business policies. There is some evidence this is what he is intending to do. The Huawei ban is and was a question of national security . Nothing to do with deregulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 25, 2023 21:44:03 GMT
Sanctions are really bad for business. In time the US sanctions will destroy the US economy. What we need to do is practice free trade, because if we do then other countries will trust us, buy our products and generally be friends. Meanwhile Duncan-Smith the other day was out on the streets with some anarchist protestors insulting China. That man is toxic. As Max said, these people have to go. Rishi needs to pull the party back to sensible business policies. There is some evidence this is what he is intending to do. The Huawei ban is and was a question of national security . Nothing to do with deregulation. It was checked and found to be clean by GCHQ. Just take it form me, that was plain old protectionism dictated by the US which we reluctantly followed. It should be lifted because the original reason of chip supply now no longer stands. China has its own chip supply for base station chips. Now Smiffy is onto Tiktok. It destroys trust this ad hoc banning of other people's products, and adds risk to supply chain which we want to be in. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 25, 2023 22:08:52 GMT
The Huawei ban is and was a question of national security . Nothing to do with deregulation. It was checked and found to be clean by GCHQ. Just take it form me, that was plain old protectionism dictated by the US which we reluctantly followed. It should be lifted because the original reason of chip supply now no longer stands. China has its own chip supply for base station chips. Now Smiffy is onto Tiktok. It destroys trust this ad hoc banning of other people's products, and adds risk to supply chain which we want to be in. Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 25, 2023 22:51:20 GMT
It was checked and found to be clean by GCHQ. Just take it form me, that was plain old protectionism dictated by the US which we reluctantly followed. It should be lifted because the original reason of chip supply now no longer stands. China has its own chip supply for base station chips. Now Smiffy is onto Tiktok. It destroys trust this ad hoc banning of other people's products, and adds risk to supply chain which we want to be in. Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it. Well I looked into it at the time and saw what GCHQ reported. The only niggle they had was the code was written in a non-standard way. You see Brit-coding follows some dumb instruction manual that is supposed to set standards, a bit like ISO9000 but for computers, known as ITIL and no doubt other variants, often seen in defence contracts. Some think it is good and others think these standards are just too long-winded and don't really achieve anything except for higher costs. What they did not find was any security weakness or dodgy backdoor entry points, so it passed the security check. The Americans were highly pissed off as well and had a meeting with our government where the US diplomat continually shouted at his British counterpart about it. I have access to a lot of detailed information about what goes on in Huawei because I believe the bloggers who do these tech videos are their employees. I can't see any way one could get the kind of info they do. You see Huawei work things the other way, and guarantee that your data is private. Think about it. I mean if there is a high level of trust between the manufacturer and the consumer then the manufacturer will go far. China is very customer-orientated in the way it conducts business. I wish we would understand the way they work and see that it makes sense. Honesty is the best policy in business. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 25, 2023 23:04:38 GMT
Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it. Well I looked into it at the time and saw what GCHQ reported. The only niggle they had was the code was written in a non-standard way. You see Brit-coding follows some dumb instruction manual that is supposed to set standards, a bit like ISO9000 but for computers, known as ITIL and no doubt other variants, often seen in defence contracts. Some think it is good and others think these standards are just too long-winded and don't really achieve anything except for higher costs. What they did not find was any security weakness or dodgy backdoor entry points, so it passed the security check. The Americans were highly pissed off as well and had a meeting with our government where the US diplomat continually shouted at his British counterpart about it. I have access to a lot of detailed information about what goes on in Huawei because I believe the bloggers who do these tech videos are their employees. I can't see any way one could get the kind of info they do. You see Huawei work things the other way, and guarantee that your data is private. Think about it. I mean if there is a high level of trust between the manufacturer and the consumer then the manufacturer will go far. China is very customer-orientated in the way it conducts business. I wish we would understand the way they work and see that it makes sense. Honesty is the best policy in business. 🙄 So it’s a no then. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 0:21:03 GMT
Well I looked into it at the time and saw what GCHQ reported. The only niggle they had was the code was written in a non-standard way. You see Brit-coding follows some dumb instruction manual that is supposed to set standards, a bit like ISO9000 but for computers, known as ITIL and no doubt other variants, often seen in defence contracts. Some think it is good and others think these standards are just too long-winded and don't really achieve anything except for higher costs. What they did not find was any security weakness or dodgy backdoor entry points, so it passed the security check. The Americans were highly pissed off as well and had a meeting with our government where the US diplomat continually shouted at his British counterpart about it. I have access to a lot of detailed information about what goes on in Huawei because I believe the bloggers who do these tech videos are their employees. I can't see any way one could get the kind of info they do. You see Huawei work things the other way, and guarantee that your data is private. Think about it. I mean if there is a high level of trust between the manufacturer and the consumer then the manufacturer will go far. China is very customer-orientated in the way it conducts business. I wish we would understand the way they work and see that it makes sense. Honesty is the best policy in business. 🙄 So it’s a no then. Well it is a no security risk. Also whatever they say about the style of coding, the fact is the Huawei internet gear is more advanced. I know because I used it myself since BT installed it. I get a real speed of 4x what I pay for. It's the classic, "it just works". |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 26, 2023 0:55:16 GMT
Well it is a no security risk. Also whatever they say about the style of coding, the fact is the Huawei internet gear is more advanced. I know because I used it myself since BT installed it. I get a real speed of 4x what I pay for. It's the classic, "it just works". Verbiage. You have no evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ. Just waffle. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 3:11:09 GMT
Well it is a no security risk. Also whatever they say about the style of coding, the fact is the Huawei internet gear is more advanced. I know because I used it myself since BT installed it. I get a real speed of 4x what I pay for. It's the classic, "it just works". Verbiage. You have no evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ. Just waffle. You are starting to act like a dick again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 26, 2023 10:08:07 GMT
Hastings was in the Remain Camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 26, 2023 13:15:14 GMT
Verbiage. You have no evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ. Just waffle. You are starting to act like a dick again.
I am not the one who claims Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ and can’t support the claim. Remember this “Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it”
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 13:20:52 GMT
You are starting to act like a dick again.
I am not the one who claims Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ and can’t support the claim. Remember this “Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it”
If you won't believe me then that's your problem. You are a lazy bum anyway and don't bother checking my links. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 26, 2023 13:24:35 GMT
I am not the one who claims Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ and can’t support the claim. Remember this “Evidence that Huawei was checked and found clean by GCHQ? YouTube videos and links with your assertion buried so deep that I need a spade won’t cut it”
If you won't believe me then that's your problem. You are a lazy bum anyway and don't bother checking my links. Nope. You made a claim that was false . You are trying to obfuscate by posting a link to nowhere, knowing that I am not going to peruse your bullshit . Had your claim been correct then you would of took the time to cut and paste the paragraph that supported it. Bullshitters are two a penny , posters who take the time to provide evidence to their claim are much rarer . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2023 13:44:29 GMT
If you won't believe me then that's your problem. You are a lazy bum anyway and don't bother checking my links. Nope. You made a claim that was false . You are trying to obfuscate by posting a link to nowhere, knowing that I am not going to peruse your bullshit . Had your claim been correct then you would of took the time to cut and paste the paragraph that supported it. Bullshitters are two a penny , posters who take the time to provide evidence to their claim are much rarer . The claim is true. But personally I don't give a shit if you believe me or not. This is the last I have to say on the truthfulness of my posts. People are at liberty to research it themselves and will find what I say is true. There were no deliberate back doors in it which was what was claimed by the US. They nitpicked trivial stuff in the process, but no smoking gun.
I've wasted enough time countering US propaganda. You are a fool for believing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 26, 2023 14:01:31 GMT
Nope. You made a claim that was false . You are trying to obfuscate by posting a link to nowhere, knowing that I am not going to peruse your bullshit . Had your claim been correct then you would of took the time to cut and paste the paragraph that supported it. Bullshitters are two a penny , posters who take the time to provide evidence to their claim are much rarer . The claim is true. But personally I don't give a shit if you believe me or not. This is the last I have to say on the truthfulness of my posts. People are at liberty to research it themselves and will find what I say is true. There were no deliberate back doors in it which was what was claimed by the US. They nitpicked trivial stuff in the process, but no smoking gun.
I've wasted enough time countering US propaganda. You are a fool for believing them.
If the claim was true then you would of provided clear and concise evidence to support your claim. I would be a fool to believe your claim without proof and you are clearly a fool to think anyone would . |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 26, 2023 14:33:50 GMT
Huawei might be clean now yet for how long and while we are close to the USA then China won't be trusted in certain ibdustries.
|
|
