I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
-
@rogue_cells @cR0w it is. There's somebody with more than 3 brain cells behind the scenes who knows they can use this to implement China-scale censorship and surveillance.
You want to sell your gear in the US? You block what they say when they say it and send everything to this place without asking any questions.@rogue_cells @cR0w they've already made it part of mergers and acquisitions. You want the government's blessing, then you will censor what they tell you to and say what they tell you to. Or they will block it and make your life a living hell.
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
@cR0w Isn't basically every router "foreign made"? I don't think any router is 100% US made.
Seems like they just don't want those NSA zero-days patched.
-
@cR0w Isn't basically every router "foreign made"? I don't think any router is 100% US made.
Seems like they just don't want those NSA zero-days patched.
@jesse I think it has more to do with market manipulation than it does anything cyber.
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
@cR0w Funny how that's a year after the next pres election.
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
@cR0w > The agency also extended a deadline for foreign-made drones to continue receiving software and firmware updates to January 1, 2029 from January 1, 2027.
First, I remain curious why so many people write sentences like that which go backwards in time as you progress through the sentence. Financial news is always like that, too. “Price target adjusted to ____ from ____”. Ridiculous.
Second, that reads like the FCC is saying drones *must* receive software updates until at least 2029? My understanding is the opposite.
-
@cR0w > The agency also extended a deadline for foreign-made drones to continue receiving software and firmware updates to January 1, 2029 from January 1, 2027.
First, I remain curious why so many people write sentences like that which go backwards in time as you progress through the sentence. Financial news is always like that, too. “Price target adjusted to ____ from ____”. Ridiculous.
Second, that reads like the FCC is saying drones *must* receive software updates until at least 2029? My understanding is the opposite.
@bob_zim I skipped the stuff about the drones because I just don't care enough but I would not be surprised if there are contradictions in there. That seems to be the way of this regime.
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
@cR0w The Federal Corruption Commission.
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
Do you know the history of Huawei? They were one of the first companies that triggered warnings over a decade ago about people embedded inside the Chinese government and also associated with Huawei installing software-based backdoors accessible via commonly used ports on Huawei routers. The effort by the US federal government to stop this has further branched out to blocking the import of chips manufactured in China for American-designed IoT devices and routers.
At the present time in cybersecurity with a haphazard US government plugging as many leaks in the form of global and domestic crises and overburdening itself with respect to the Iran War and the situation in the Middle East — two disparate but related elements within the US government can be mutually exclusive — unfortunately. My view about this is they need to form a plan and stick to the plan through using political mechanisms.
The FCC doesn't want back doors around. They are citing existing Import/Export controls [1] and they want to protect (or would /prefer/ to protect, rather) America's intellectual property from being exfiltrated through the software back doors. The White House is for the most part now detached from public reality, sadly. Although the article says that the trump admin is supporting this effort and it does really matter in the end what Donald Trump understands about technology. The President holds the veto pen in Congress.
[1] - "U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains the "Entity List" of blacklisted firms under export control restrictions. This list has grown nine-fold over the last decade to nearly 1,200 entities, as hundreds of companies from China's #Huawei to Russia's Gazprom were added. Executive Order 13783 added Huawei and 68 Huawei affiliates across 26 destinations to the Entity List in May 2019"
-
Do you know the history of Huawei? They were one of the first companies that triggered warnings over a decade ago about people embedded inside the Chinese government and also associated with Huawei installing software-based backdoors accessible via commonly used ports on Huawei routers. The effort by the US federal government to stop this has further branched out to blocking the import of chips manufactured in China for American-designed IoT devices and routers.
At the present time in cybersecurity with a haphazard US government plugging as many leaks in the form of global and domestic crises and overburdening itself with respect to the Iran War and the situation in the Middle East — two disparate but related elements within the US government can be mutually exclusive — unfortunately. My view about this is they need to form a plan and stick to the plan through using political mechanisms.
The FCC doesn't want back doors around. They are citing existing Import/Export controls [1] and they want to protect (or would /prefer/ to protect, rather) America's intellectual property from being exfiltrated through the software back doors. The White House is for the most part now detached from public reality, sadly. Although the article says that the trump admin is supporting this effort and it does really matter in the end what Donald Trump understands about technology. The President holds the veto pen in Congress.
[1] - "U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains the "Entity List" of blacklisted firms under export control restrictions. This list has grown nine-fold over the last decade to nearly 1,200 entities, as hundreds of companies from China's #Huawei to Russia's Gazprom were added. Executive Order 13783 added Huawei and 68 Huawei affiliates across 26 destinations to the Entity List in May 2019"
@iamnickw You sure seem to give the regime a lot of benefit of the doubt. But this bit made me actually LOL:
The FCC doesn't want back doors around.
The FCC DGAF about that. Do you really think they would have let the telecoms sweep the Typhoons under the rug like they did if they cared about anything security related?
-
I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bans are not really about security...
https://therecord.media/fcc-pushes-ban-on-updates-to-foreign-routers-drones-2029
@cR0w Putting the squeeze on #RootInfractructure by #TechBros and their #USpol cronies, goes hand-in-hand/Venn's to major trade routes like China, and other artificially manufactured opposition. Further entrenchment of false amplification of direct opposition, keeps subservience in place to serve #Capitalism #greed.
Break the fake. Graduate the #brainwashing. Replace #AbusivePower with ethical #RootInfrastructure #scientists.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
