2 hours ago, Monomial said:

The people here saying there has to be proof or a smoking gun are completely missing the point. There is never, ever "proof" of something like this. There is only a fear. Just because you don't have proof someone is a double agent, does not mean you need to grant them clearance to sensitive information. Suspicion and opportunity are more than enough reason to act.

 

The issue at stake is not proving Huawei's guilt. The issue is that Huawei can not conclusively prove they are innocent of these concerns, and there are several reasons to believe they may be compromised. (Again, not "proven" to be compromised.) Therefore, several Western governments have decided that based on a preponderance of evidence it is too risky to include them in their infrastructure, and they are encouraging others to do the same as a way to contain the perceived threat. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. But it does require each country to choose a side. The UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands need to understand the consequences of exposing their communications networks to the risks, even if those risks are ultimately not real. There will be disadvantages no matter which way they decide.

 

I can't prove Google is going to misuse my data that they have collected from me. But I have a very real suspicion they will, and that is enough for me to excercise caution and encourage others to do the same.

 

Which of course bodes the question, does 5g enable that? And would it enable anyone to that kind of information? And would there be anyone that can be trusted with that kind of information?

 

Shouldn't the whole 5g idea be scrapped?

Don't tell me you anti-China farangs never heard of the PRISM program?

PRISM (surveillance program)

 

Wouldn't it be easier for the US gov to ask Google or Microsoft or Facebook to give them the details of your communications instead of setting all the cell-towers to monitor, capture and decrypt all the data packets coming from your phone or computer?