I remain to be convinced that Apple or Samsung are any more trustworthy than Huawei. It's all made in China. While these manufacturers may not be sneaking backdoors into devices, since this might be caught, they likely are being compelled to disclose designs to be analyzed for weaknesses. It doesn't really matter if some of the design work is done in California.

I wouldn't have substantially higher trust in something made in the U.S. or other "five eyes" countries either. These governments do not respect the privacy of their citizens, as evidenced by the NSA's recent breaches. Some countries do slightly better than others (e.g. Canada probably isn't as bad as the U.S. yet). However, on the whole, privacy rights seem to be on the decline in these countries. Treaties and cooperation between the security agencies of these countries drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Pardon my ignorance here. Putting the US or other five eyes countries on the same plane as China is a false equivalency. People can at least take it to streets and demand facts, which is not possible when we are talking about China. Hypothetically, if Apple and Samsung made their phones in the US or other five eyes countries we can assume some level of oversight on their practices , which is not quite possible in China.

> People can at least take it to streets and demand facts, which is not possible when we are talking about China.

I agree the US is better about permitting public protest. But if the directors of these US agencies can lie to Congress[0] without consequence then does it really matter?

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27...

They wouldn't be allowed to lie to Congress if Congress didn't allow them to lie, and Congress wouldn't allow them to lie if the American people expressed a clear desire for their elected government to reign the appointed organs back in. That's what the protests are for.

There is a lot of institutional momentum in the US to keep doing bad things, including a crushing blanket of a media that cares a lot more about pop culture than anything else. But it is nice to not fear much for writing this.

What would you consider expressing a clear desire to look like? The two examples that come to mind for me, the TEA party and Occupy Wall Street, both got shut down with extreme prejudice and enthusiastic support from half the electorate.

Occupy and the Tea party weren't issues, they were groups. Groups are subject to many dangers, internally and externally, that have little to do with their goals. "Put our representatives back in charge," could be carried to Washington by anybody from a billionaire to Bernie Sanders.

> They wouldn't be allowed to lie to Congress if Congress didn't allow them to lie

That seems like a pretty radical position to take - I'd bet that Congress has a rule in place saying "you can't lie to us".

How are you justifying that as a stance? What more do you want Congress to do? And how will that be different from trial by media?

>What more do you want Congress to do?

Congress could investigate, or keep talking about it, or push for something to be done to negatively impact the parties that did it, or anything really. Even the slightest deviation from the present course of "don't say out loud that it happened and hope everyone forgets," would be a welcome show of some backbone.

>And how will that be different from trial by media?

Look at history to see the many things Congress can do when someone tries to pull something on them. They have options, they just aren't taking any.

> But if the directors of these US agencies can lie to Congress[0]

Are China's counterparts held accountable by China's people? And no, China's communist party is not China's people.

To be fair, it's really the level of independent journalism and free speech in the US that makes it better than China.

Yes, the NSA has done terrible things in the past. The only way we know about it is because of journalism.

But sadly those journalist and whistle-blowers are being hounded by the US government and threatened with death by high up government officials.

Edward Snowden, whistleblower, yes. Glenn Greenwald, reporter, no.

Mostly we know about it because of now jailed or internationally-wanted 'traitors' or 'enemies of state'; the journalists who agreed to publish the initial stories are few and far between.

When they say "Huawei kit is backdoored by the PRC" the implicit message is "but probably not us."

For some audiences, there's definitely a case to be made for "well, every officer in the PRC government from a truancy-officer on up can read your email, but the FBI (or any local LEO who can construct some flimsy National Security premise t them) can't."

Is your argument to use Huawei hardware here? Because if you are using Huawei you are guaranteed to be using an insecure device.

Yeah butwhatabout... (is the response here). You nailed it, either pick a 100% compromised device or a possible one.

What's hilarious about that? It's obvious and natural that countries would seek to protect themselves from being spied upon, while at the same time attempt to spy on others. Do you expect the US to say "we are spying on some other countries so we are totally ok with others spying on us"?

At a guess, the hilarity comes from the 'challenge' part. It makes it sound like Huawei is being challenged to do something different - which is pretty laughable by any standard the US intelligence agencies apply to themselves.

It is a bit like an Olympic athlete losing a race and seriously complaining that the competition trained too hard and challenging them to 'live a little more' (imagining that scene with a slightly miffed but condescending athlete cracks me up) - I mean, theoretically maybe, but the attitude that the competition should just give up is pretty funny.

The "challenge" to Huawei are legal steps those countries are taking to block Huawei from spying on them, not some argument about the universal morality of espionage. Interpreting this as hypocricity is a result of a conceptual confusion: countries exists to defend their interests, not to enforce a level playing field. Of course it is in the interest of the US to be allowed to do things that others countries aren't allowed to do. For example: the US wants to have nuclear weapons while preventing potential enemies from getting nuclear weapons. Does this seem equally "hilarious" to you?

> For example: the US wants to have nuclear weapons while preventing potential enemies from getting nuclear weapons. Does this seem equally "hilarious" to you?

It does.

I find it far more hilarious that you think the US, or any other country, should strive for a balanced playing field between it and its enemies, or that the world would actually be a better place because of that.

You're reading too much into what I said.

Do as we say, not as we do.

How dare they meddle in our election, said the country who has meddled in hundreds of elections and set up countless coups.

Western arrogance and hypocrisy in all its glory.

It requires spy agencies to crack espionage.

I guess if you're just an everyman or everywoman -- one with no info relating to national security on your device -- it could be better to own Huawei to avoid abuses of authorities inside the US[1]?

Particularly if you are a woman, minority, journalist, or business-owner, as [1] highlights, you may be safer from such abuses.

1 - https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-office...