Last Sunday I watched with interest the piece on 60 Minutes concerning Huawei working in the States. I have a few thoughts.
Propaganda does not only originate from outside and against the US. Some of it actually starts here in the states. Propaganda can operate in opposite directions. Propaganda doesn�t have to be true to be believed.
The US, we�re told, appears to be behind in telecommunication technology, which is currently one of the most sought after luxuries/staples Americans want. Why would the US government want a known Chinese subsidized company that is deployed in over 140 countries to gain a foothold in the richest telecommunications market in the world?
The answer is- It doesn�t!
Why would a Chinese company that currently serves more than 500 operators and over one third of the world�s population risk reputation and retaliation by stealing US government intelligence data, which you�d think should be separable?
The answer is- It wouldn�t!
Why would a company who last year had $32.2 billion in revenues and is reportedly wholly owned by it�s more than 65,000 employees bet the house by tainting its name and participating in an international scandal?
The answer is- It won�t!
Call me increasingly suspicious about US politicians and their motives, but a bigger question that comes to my mind is why are House Intelligence Committee�s chairman, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, and Maryland Democrat C.A. �Dutch� Ruppersberger so bent on convincing the American public �that Huawei is somehow uniquely vulnerable to cyber mischief and ignore technical and commercial realities�? The report goes on to say �They (Huawei) recklessly threaten American jobs and innovation, do nothing to protect national security, and should be exposed as dangerous political distractions.�
I�m not advocating allowing a foreign threat to gain hold of of our telecommunications infrastructure. I am questioning the means by which it�s served to the American public. The US is not in the position to lose more jobs offshore. Yet this seems to be a trait of protectionism and America is unwilling to play fair whenever it finds itself losing the ability to compete with another country.
Your ears don�t perk up when a state representative named �Dutch� starts denouncing an eastern company in favor of Scandinavian based Ericsson? It seems Mr. Ruppersberger believes �one of the main reasons we are having this investigation is to educate the citizens in business in the United States Of America�. Thank you for that bit of business wisdom representative Ruppersberger.
And another observation. With who and what part of the world is �Dutch� hanging out with by using analogies like �in the telecommunications world, once you get the camel�s nose in the tent, you can go anywhere�?
I�m sorry but something just doesn�t add up to me here. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I believe there�s more to it than the American public is being told. Sometimes propaganda is a two way street.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Trendsighter.
Is Huawei Stealing More Than Data?
Propaganda does not only originate from outside and against the US. Some of it actually starts here in the states. Propaganda can operate in opposite directions. Propaganda doesn�t have to be true to be believed.
The US, we�re told, appears to be behind in telecommunication technology, which is currently one of the most sought after luxuries/staples Americans want. Why would the US government want a known Chinese subsidized company that is deployed in over 140 countries to gain a foothold in the richest telecommunications market in the world?
The answer is- It doesn�t!
Why would a Chinese company that currently serves more than 500 operators and over one third of the world�s population risk reputation and retaliation by stealing US government intelligence data, which you�d think should be separable?
The answer is- It wouldn�t!
Why would a company who last year had $32.2 billion in revenues and is reportedly wholly owned by it�s more than 65,000 employees bet the house by tainting its name and participating in an international scandal?
The answer is- It won�t!
Call me increasingly suspicious about US politicians and their motives, but a bigger question that comes to my mind is why are House Intelligence Committee�s chairman, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, and Maryland Democrat C.A. �Dutch� Ruppersberger so bent on convincing the American public �that Huawei is somehow uniquely vulnerable to cyber mischief and ignore technical and commercial realities�? The report goes on to say �They (Huawei) recklessly threaten American jobs and innovation, do nothing to protect national security, and should be exposed as dangerous political distractions.�
I�m not advocating allowing a foreign threat to gain hold of of our telecommunications infrastructure. I am questioning the means by which it�s served to the American public. The US is not in the position to lose more jobs offshore. Yet this seems to be a trait of protectionism and America is unwilling to play fair whenever it finds itself losing the ability to compete with another country.
Your ears don�t perk up when a state representative named �Dutch� starts denouncing an eastern company in favor of Scandinavian based Ericsson? It seems Mr. Ruppersberger believes �one of the main reasons we are having this investigation is to educate the citizens in business in the United States Of America�. Thank you for that bit of business wisdom representative Ruppersberger.
And another observation. With who and what part of the world is �Dutch� hanging out with by using analogies like �in the telecommunications world, once you get the camel�s nose in the tent, you can go anywhere�?
I�m sorry but something just doesn�t add up to me here. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I believe there�s more to it than the American public is being told. Sometimes propaganda is a two way street.