That's your assumption. I have no idea where the Chinese route communications. I wouldn't speculate one way or the other. But it's a moot point in relation to Chinese cyber attacks. Those can be launched from many different locations.

On this we agree.

It absolutely changes things. If it's overseen by, and sold by, a company (ex: Apple) in another country (ex: US), then it's subject to said country's (US) laws. The same is not said for a product owned by/manf by a foreign country (China in this case).

We don't like iPhone chargers killing people.

That sounds nice and logical, but in actuality it's not the case. I would assume that every government surveils its peeps to some degree. Some are simply more capable than others.

Again, I'm not willing to make that blind assumption. Most American's probably would have said that about the US Gov't pre-Snowden.

PS: Do you really believe it's only the US-UK? Intelligence agencies around the globe routinely coordinate efforts when it's mutually beneficial.

Apparently the French are learning about their own PRISM system that was targeted at the French.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20130819/spyi...out-of-control

Not sure what you are concerned about. If it is that sensitive and of so much concern to you might want to read this little gem of a law.
Also if it that important either don't address it via any electronic device or look into some very secure data encryption programs.

I may be incorrect but I would suspect that an unlocked phone from another country will not have the FCC license and did does not meet the(below) CALEA requirements, but your service provider will have anyway. I believe that this also means that any software licensed for use in the USA must provide a backdoor to big-bro.

This is a teaser from the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)"
"The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).

CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time."

And here is the link.

That to which you seem to be objecting is a statement of fact and doesn't involve speculation.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-1033_3-6035611.html

It does nothing to effectively eliminate opportunities for the placement of spyware -- hardware or software -- on the devices.

How is not actually the case?

The blind assumption is not mine. I made no such assumption.

By the way, I'm not one of those Americans surprised by those items which the whistleblower Snowden has given to journalists.

I actually indicated in this thread that Team US-UK has a more established global cooperative to spy on people around the world than China does. That is meant to signal to you and others that this is headed by Team US-UK but those engaged in making this happen for Team US-UK involves more than just the US and UK.


That's not news to me. It is part of how the UK comes to use the Terrorism Act of 2000 to detain a French woman traveling back home to the UK (from France) with her children and then charge her with a crime for basically refusing to answer questions in the absence of a lawyer (just after the UKBA cut her off on arrival back to the UK).

Then you should have no problem providing your source. Since there's no way to know what equipment is installed at every internet junction or which way every packet is routed every time, I'm going to guess you have no source.

Except for the rule of law. Apple (for example) is liable if it's found that its products are infringing on privacy rights regardless of where their products are actually made. Good luck trying to sue a Chinese manufacturer.

Read the rest of the line you failed to quote.

Again, provide your source.

And I'm sure you weren't surprised...

I don't disagree with that assumption, but team US-UK is hardly *just* US-UK. The same is true for any other intel alliance.

Since when is a statement of fact to be called an assumption? When the claim that a statement of fact is an unsupported assumption is being made by those unaware or unwilling to admit the facts.

Good luck attempting to disprove anything stated in my posts above.

Chinese manufacturers, by the way, have been sued in the US before and it doesn't take much luck to do so. You'll need more luck to sue and win in the US against a US company that is helping the US spy on US persons.

Do Chinese manufacturers really want something like this kind of talked about outcome http://www.informationweek.com/cloud...nies/240159980 to happen to them any more than US tech companies do? The Chinese are into maximizing profits too.

By the way, when it comes to Apple and Apple customers, Apple has helped the USG so that the customer data could be used for surveillance purposes.

You'll need more luck to sue and win in the US against a US company that is helping the US spy on US persons

Better luck trying to prove them. I guess this is your admission that you have no source. It really didn't have to be that difficult.

There's a big difference between claiming something is true with no facts, than claiming something can't be proven with no facts.

And a quick google search shows that those judgements are almost always meaningless.

From Reuters: "To date I am not aware of a single case where a United States judgment has been enforced in China," said Owen Nee, a Jones Day lawyer who has been practicing in China for more than 30 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...29211020110214

I suspect the consumer is un"luck"y in either case. We can argue about whom is *less* "luck"y, but it's getting rather silly.

On the contrary, it is no such admission. It's just that I don't spoon-feed adults on demand.

Indeed, and neither was done by me.

Almost always, but not always, eh?

The judgments are not almost always meaningless, especially when the lawsuit in the US is against a foreign company with assets in the US.

Is he aware of a US judgement enforced in the US against a Chinese company? He ought to be.

Do you really know anything about the US deliberately choosing to provide Chinese companies legal immunity for spying on US persons inside the US? Do you really know anything about the US providing legal immunity to US companies for spying on US persons inside the US? The latter you should be able to find out on your own pretty easily. With regard to the former, prepared for wasting time? You should be.

It's harder to sue and win against a manufacturer or service provider in the country whose government has granted immunity to the manufacturer or service provider being sued for spying on people. It's easier to sue and win against a manufacturer or service provider who hasn't been granted immunity in the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed. You'll need more luck to sue and win where the manufacturer or service provider has been granted immunity of sorts.

I find it amusing that a party would be worried about the security of a smartphone merely because it has a Chinese manufacturer when just about everyone has electronics made by Chinese manufacturers. Using a smartphone on a government-monitored network is a recipe for privacy invasion regardless of where the phone was manufactured when dealing with a major brand label, Chinese, American or whatnot.

I'm done with this thread, on that note.

And the fact that you fail to see a difference between a Chinese (or Iranian for that matter) company with no operations in other countries and a Chinese supplier who makes electronics for a company who's incorporated in another country subject to foreign law, means we can't have a rational conversation anyway.

Me too. FWIW, I get it that you have an axe to grind with the US Government because they monitor communications, but that sideshow really had nothing to do with my original point.