5th Period
Government
2/22/08
Essay Questions
McCulloch v. Maryland is significant because :
the decision strengthened the government in relation to the states
it established that the state government could not tax the federal government
it established that the national government has certain implied powers that go beyond its enumerated powers
The court’s decision was fair, because although the power of the government is limited it “it is supreme in its sphere of action,” and as long as the national government behaves in accordance with the Constitution its policies take precedent over the states.
The Supreme Court rulings in Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright are significant because :
in the Miranda v. Arizona ruling the Supreme Court decision set guidelines for police questioning of accused persons to protect them against self incrimination and to protect their right to counsel,
the Supreme Court decided to hold that anyone accused of a felony where imprisonment may be imposed, however poor her or she might be, has a right to a lawyer
The Court was properly enforcing provisions of the Bill of Rights in these cases.
In Gideon v. Wainwright the court properly enforces the provisions of the Bill of Rights by upholding the ideals of the constitution in that all people, regardless of wealth, should have the right to counsel. The Court in Miranda v. Arizona again properly enforces the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment forbids self incrimination, and the Miranda Rights only protects the accused by informing them of these rights, therefore only upholding what has already been established in the constitution by the architects of the document.
The Supreme Court recent decisions regarding the right to privacy, abortion and the right to die stated that:
various portions of the Bill of Rights cast “penumbras”
no state can control abortions during the first trimester, it permitted states to allow regulated abortions
federal funds cannot be used for abortions
it is a federal crime to intimidate abortion providers or women seeking abortions
patients can refuse unwanted medical treatment
there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide and that states may prohibit it
In general these rulings limit the scope of the government. Our right to privacy is ruled in the Supreme Court as being apart of the penumbras cast by the Bill of Rights, allowing us certain rights not actually stated directly in the constitution, thereby taking the ability of the government to invade people’s lives at it’s every whim. It is also stated that abortion during the first trimester can’t be regulated, and people who plan perform abortions or get them can’t be stopped or harmed because of it. Also federal funds cannot be used for abortions effectively taking the government out of the abortion process and distancing itself from the issue. The government now cannot stop patients from receiving medical treatment, and there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide and it may be prohibited by the states. The government has no power over physician-assisted suicide and it is established through its ruling. The scope of the government is limited and rightly so, protecting our right to privacy, die, and abortion within certain parameters.
Flag burning and wearing a black armband have been protected by the Court because:
flag burning and wearing a black armband constitutes expressive conduct, and thus is entitled to constitutional protection
although those ideas may be offensive or disagreeable to many people, the government may not prohibit them from expressing those ideas
This is appropriate because regardless of whom you are or what you believe in, our Constitution guarantees you the freedom of expression, granted you are a citizen. That freedom cannot and should not be stifled by the opinions of others regarding the way one chooses to express him or herself, as long as they do not impose on anyone else’s Constitutional Rights.
Related
MODS PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD
Just saw this article and thought I would Quote it.
Each person in the suit is seeking 1 million won ($932) in damages, Kim Hyeong-seok, one of their attorneys, said Wednesday. He said they are targeting Apple Inc. and its South Korean unit to "protect privacy" rights.
Apple spokesman Steve Park in Seoul declined to comment.
Apple has faced complaints and criticisms since it said in April that its iPhones were storing locations of nearby cellphone towers and Wi-Fi hot spots for up to a year. Such data can be used to create a rough map of the device owner's movements.
Apple also revealed that a software bug caused iPhones to continue to send anonymous location data to the company's servers even when location services on the device were turned off.
The company has said it will no longer store the data on phones for more than seven days, will encrypt the data and will stop backing up the files to user computers. It also has fixed the bug with a free software update.
Kim, the lawyer, took Apple to court earlier this year over iPhone privacy and was awarded 1 million won.
The Korea Communications Commission, South Korea's communications regulator, earlier this month ordered Apple's local operation to pay a 3 million won fine for what it said were violations of the country's location information laws.
Oh Byoung-cheol, a professor of information technology law at Seoul's Yonsei University law school, said that the KCC ruling is likely to bolster the plaintiffs' allegations of illegality by Apple and that could have an impact on possible cases in other countries.
But any South Korean court decision on damages is unlikely to have much effect elsewhere given differences in international tort law, he said.
South Korean courts "tend to be stingy with damages for mental suffering," he said.
If the court in the southern city of Changwon rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the total award could come to about 27.6 billion won ($25.7 million). Cupertino, California-based Apple — the most valuable company in the United States — earned $7.31 billion in its fiscal third quarter.
Kim said he expected the first hearing in the new case to take place in October or November.
Jung Ogk-taek, an official at the Changwon District Court, said it was not clear how much time would be needed to reach a verdict.
Kim said 26,691 plaintiffs were listed in the civil suit filed Wednesday. Another 921 are minors and lawyers need to obtain the consent of their parents before they can join, Kim said. He expects that to take about two weeks.
Lawyers are soliciting more participants between now and the end of this month to join the case.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App
An 8 year old boy was removed from his home, and his mother stripped of custody over is weight. The child was 200lbs. Has CPS overstepped the boundaries here, or is this justified?
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/obese_cleveland_heights_child.html said:
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- An 8-year-old Cleveland Heights boy was taken from his family and placed in foster care last month after county case workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.
At more than 200 pounds, the third-grader is considered severely obese and at risk for developing such diseases as diabetes and hypertension.
But even though the state health department estimates more than 12 percent of third-graders statewide are severely obese -- that could mean 1,380 in Cuyahoga County alone -- this is the first time anyone in the county or the state can recall a child being taken from a parent for a strictly weight-related issue.
The case plays into an emerging national debate that has some urging social-service agencies to step in when parents have failed to address a weight problem.
Others suggest there's hypocrisy in a government that would advocate taking children away for being overweight while saying it's OK to advertise unhealthy food and put toys in fast-food kids' meals.
Cuyahoga County does not have a specific policy on dealing with obese children. It removed the boy because case workers considered this mother's inability to get her son's weight down a form of medical neglect, said Mary Louise Madigan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services.
They said that the child's weight gain was caused by his environment and that the mother wasn't following doctor's orders -- which she disputes.
"This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody," Madigan said. The agency worked with the mother for more than a year before asking Juvenile Court for custody of the child, she said.
Lawyers for the mother, a substitute elementary school teacher who is also taking vocational school classes, think the county has overreached in this case by arguing that medical conditions the boy is at risk for -- but doesn't yet have -- pose an imminent danger to his health.
They question whether the emotional impact of being yanked from his family, school and friends was also considered.
"I think we would concede that some intervention is appropriate," Juvenile Public Defender Sam Amata said. "But what risk became imminent? When did it become an immediate problem?"
Children are ordinarily removed from their homes for physical abuse, neglect or undernourishment.
Amata said that in his decades as a public defender, he has seen children left in homes with parents who have severe drug problems or who have beaten their children, with the reasoning that there isn't an immediate danger to the child.
In this case, Amata said, other than having a weight problem, the boy was a normal elementary school student who was on the honor roll and participated in school activities.
Records show the child's only current medical problem, sleep apnea, is being treated and that he wears a machine nightly that helps and monitors his breathing.
"They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don't love my child," the boy's mother said.
"Of course I love him. Of course I want him to lose weight. It's a lifestyle change, and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."
The mother and the boy are not named in this story because The Plain Dealer does not generally identify those involved in abuse cases.
The mother said that social workers took her son from his school on Oct. 19 and told her she could see him only once a week for two hours. The boy is living in a foster home.
Next month, the two sides will debate the case in front of a Juvenile Court magistrate, who will decide what is in the boy's best interest. A trial is set on the child's 9th birthday.
Rainbow hospital program for kids, families
County workers were alerted to the child's weight in early 2010 after his mother took him to a hospital for breathing problems. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea, which can be weight-related, and was given the breathing machine. Social workers began to monitor him under what the county calls protective supervision.
Last year, the boy lost weight but in recent months began to gain it back rapidly. That's when the county moved to take the child, records show.
The mother said that when she found out that other kids and a sibling might be giving her son extra food, she tried to put a stop to it and explain to him that he could eat only certain foods.
She tried to follow the recommendations of the doctors, such as getting him a bike and encouraging him to get exercise.
The mother wonders what role genetics plays in the boy's condition -- both she and his father and some other family members are overweight, she said. However, she also has a 16-year-old son who is tall and thin.
The mother agreed to enroll the child in a special Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital program called Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight.
That program has evaluated more than 900 overweight and obese children from the ages of 4 to 8 since 2005. A team of specialty doctors, nutritionists, psychologists and others treat the children and work to educate families about creating healthy eating habits.
Dr. Naveen Uli, a pediatric endocrinologist and co-director of the program, said he is seeing more children who are quickly developing diseases that in the past were seen only in adults, like Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. These can affect a person's health, life span and health care costs, he said.
But he said interventions need to be targeted, if possible, for the whole family.
Uli said many families in the program have found it difficult to relearn how to eat, to read and translate confusing food labels and to make the healthy choices. Not all families complete the intense 12-week program, or they are unwilling or unable to grasp the seriousness of the threat, he said.
There is no policy on whether to report obese children to the county if they do not complete the program, but doctors can call if they think the child is at risk.
Uli said most of the children don't require immediate medical intervention but instead need help to prevent them from getting diseases like diabetes.
Uli said that in most cases, he thinks that keeping the family unit intact is better. But if that doesn't work, other interventions have to be derived, he said.
Debate emerges nationally on best ways to intervene
That is precisely what is at the core of a debate that is emerging nationally in the discussions about childhood obesity.
Earlier this year, Dr. David Ludwig, Harvard University professor and pediatric obesity expert, urged children's services agencies to intervene in severe cases when parents have failed to address a weight problem that leads to imminent health risks.
Ludwig, the co-author of an article that appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association this summer, said other interventions should be tried first and that children should be removed only as a last resort.
The article cited the example of a 12-year-old patient of Ludwig's who weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea -- conditions that could kill her before the age of 30.
But others question whether a future risk is enough to separate a child from a family.
Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that before a trend of removing children takes hold, the broader public-policy issue needs to be explored.
"A 218-pound 8-year-old is a time bomb," Caplan acknowledged. "But the government cannot raise these children. A third of kids are fat. We aren't going to move them all to foster care. We can't afford it, and I'm not sure there are enough foster parents to do it. "
He said he is worried that the families with the fewest resources, which are often minorities, will end up being ones with their children removed.
Caplan said one could get ethical whiplash in a world where one arm of government is so concerned about a child's weight that it removes him from his home, while another branch of government argues that french fries and tomato paste on pizza should be counted as servings of vegetables.
"It's completely hypocritical, or to put it another way, a schizophrenic stance," he said.
"It's OK to threaten to take a kid away or charge someone more for insurance," he said. "But it's also OK to advertise unhealthy food and put toys in kids' meals."
In the Cleveland Heights case, county workers believed that disconnecting the boy from his family, at least temporarily, might help. And he has lost a few pounds in the last month.
But now lawyers for the mother say they've been told that the foster mother who has the child in a neighboring suburb is having trouble keeping up with all of his appointments.
There was even a discussion about getting the foster mother additional help or moving the child again, this time to a foster home with a personal trainer, Amata said.
"I wonder why they didn't offer the mother that kind of extra help," Amata said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
edit: IS there any way I can correct the typo in the poll?
Tomdg07 said:
IS there any way I can correct the typo in the poll?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PM a mod and see if they can get it done, but probably via an admin.
Genetics, being blamed for Greed and Sloth since 1980
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lack of education is the real issue. The kid should have been sent to a 'Fat Camp' and the mother sentenced to Community Service and Counselling.
Only an admin can change polls. PM MikeChannon.
As for the article, CPS was right to take the kid. I mean 200 punds at 8 years old. I'm 20 and never reached 200 lbs, most I think was like 188. And genetics my ass. Also many of them say its a disease. What's the name, hunger?
The artcile says "The mother agreed to enroll the child in a special Rainbow Babies & Childrens Hospital program called Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight", and also "She tried to follow the recommendations of the doctors, such as getting him a bike and encouraging him to get exercise." No where did the article indicate that she was not cooperating with CPS or coordinating with dr's to help the kid lose the weight.
While I do not see CPS removing a child from a home in these situations as a protecting act it is a very grey matter. If the mom had agreed to such programs its hard to say this instance was justified unless theres is some proof she is neglecting the childs health behind closed doors, which isnt clear here as shes been taking him to see doctors on the matter. But than you also have to remember that you dont get to 200 lbs at 8yrs old by siblings sneaking you snacks...
Im going to post their letter in its entirety and hope you guys sign the petition as the first petition has influenced the E.U. Parliament to wash its hands off ACTA and submit it to the court. We need a second petition to bash ACTAs Head in
for good.
Dear friends,
In days, the European Commission will try a last ditch attempt to revive ACTA. But we can shine a light on their dirty trick and foil their plans.
Governments are turning their back on ACTA one by one, so the EC is asking their Court of Justice to give the treaty the greenlight and renew its momentum -- but they plan to manipulate the process by giving the court only a narrow, uncontroversial question to consider, hoping it will lead to a positive outcome.
We can push the court to see though the EC's ploy and look at all the legal implications of this censorship treaty on our freedoms -- forcing a negative decision that kills ACTA for good. Click below to sign the call:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_time_to_win//?vl
The European Commission spent five years negotiating ACTA in secret with corporations, but in the last five weeks we've blown the ACTA debate into the open. Now the Commission is fighting to keep ACTA alive by getting the blessing of the EU’s highest court. Unless we step in now the Commission, well-versed in bureaucratic dodges, may only present the court with a narrow question, preventing it from assessing ACTA's impacts on our freedom of expression, privacy and democracy.
We’ve forced governments in Poland, Germany, Bulgaria and other countries to freeze ratification. And now, if we win this battle in the European Commission, we can stop ACTA for good. If the EU does not ratify, ACTA will never become a global agreement and negotiators will have to go back to the drawing board to produce a treaty that stops genuine abuses but protects our rights.
Let's urgently call on the Commission and Court to give ACTA a full and fair hearing, and make sure the whole truth about this threat to our fundamental freedoms is revealed. Sign now and send this to everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_time_to_win//?cl=1633964172&v=12965
Millions of us joined together to fight for Internet freedom and stop the US censorship laws. We won, but now this threat is back on a global scale with ACTA. We've done what no one thought we could and stopped the treaty's march to ratification. Let's finish what we started and beat back ACTA, for good!
With hope and determination,
Alex, Pascal, Laura, Alice, Ricken, Dalia, Diego and the whole Avaaz team
PS. Check out the media coverage of our 2.4 million strong petition delivery to the European Parliament on Tuesday -- we caused quite a stir!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure it isn't news to most of you that Huawei and ZTE have been systematically attacked by the United States for a couple of years now. Carriers in the U.S. do not carry Huawei phones, and in the past couple of weeks alone things have been escalated on all fronts. Huawei stock has all but crashed, the victim of serious market manipulation by everyone that the U.S. is forcing to play along with their charade. They are even trying to force other countries to ban hardware from both these companies. Last week, the U.S. bullied Canadian authourities into arresting the CFO of Huawei, who is of course the daughter of the CEO. Needless to say, China is not happy about it - and have made some fairly ugly threats on diplomatic channels since.
There are a few aspects to this, first of all the insistence by U.S. intelligence services that both Huawei and ZTE are 'spying' for the Chinese government. If there exists one iota of proof showing this, they haven't come out with it. In other words, they are claiming that these companies have the 'capability' to spy, which is of course a nonsensical statement because the same could be said for ANY device capable of networking made by ANY company in the past 30 years. If phones or routers or switches or dedicated backbone mainframes WERE spying, any privacy/hacking group would have already come out with obvious evidence of such. I won't even go into the irony of the American government complaining about spying on civilians... The thing that makes this truly laughable is that approximately 80% of all hardware handling Internet traffic already in place was made by these two companies. It is rumoured that the reason for this hysterical attack on these companies, especially Huawei, is that the NSA has not been able to crack their encryption - and that these companies have refused to give the NSA backdoor access. Again, the irony is so rich it hurts.
The U.S. has unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iran, sanctions that have been repeatedly overturned and veto'd by all of the other members of the U.N. council. As such these sanctions do not carry any weight in the international system at large. As an example other countries are merrily continuing to trade with Iran, and the United States cannot legally do anything about it. Their excuse for flat out kidnapping the daughter of the CEO of Huawei (on the same day that Trump sat and had dinner with Xi in Beunos Aires) was the claim that Huawei was doing business with Iran through a shell company. They are accusing her of a crime, based on sanctions that are illegal. A crime that she didn't commit in Canada, or Iran, or China, or Mexico, or in any other country she has been to. Canadian extradition treaties with the United States mean that what the United States did was 'legal' as far as ordering Canadian police to apprehend her - except for the fact that technically she never left the airport, which by law is considered international territory that is legally bound by the laws of specific parts of the airport. For example, a good sized chunk of the Vancouver airport is considered American ground - in the same way that an embassy is. You cross a checkpoint, within which you are bound to the laws of the United States and there are U.S. military forces there in fatigues and carrying AR-15's. She, of course, did not enter this area. In fact she legally didn't even enter Canadian territory.
This is all part of a bigger trade war, one that could potentially get very ugly - very quickly. In the week since her abduction (I won't call it an arrest), Canadian authourities have stalled on having a bail hearing for her. Of course the Americans are demanding that she be denied bail, for obvious reasons. Meanwhile the citizens of Canada (like me) are outraged by this disgusting abuse of American thuggery, and by the simpering cowardice of our buffoon of a leader Justin Trudeau - who in typical idiot fashion happily gushed about how he was warned in advance of this 'arrest'. Let's be clear here. China has blatantly broken international law when it comes to patents and legal intellectual property as a matter of course through the history of technological development. This is how they operate. No one will argue that they caused the crash of several major tech-communications companies here in Canada, including Nortel and arguably Blackberry (although they were a victim of their own shortsightness as well, but hey they really stuck to that physical keyboard to the very end). No one is going to say that China has a great record when it comes to human rights, and they certainly aren't afraid to disappear their own people in a heartbeat - even from foreign countries. That said, it could very easily be argued that the United States has done more harm in our world than China by orders of magnitude - but that is another discussion entirely.
<Insert 20 page rant here about how Bush and Obama sold 500,000 production jobs to China and the American public happily allowed Borgmart to spread across the country like a Cancer>
Anyway, back to the topic of... well, my topic (if that is even possible). Things are heating up BIG TIME - by the day. China announced today that they have banned the sales of all iphones in large parts of the country. They have recalled diplomats, and are very close to expelling Canadian diplomats. The CEO of Huawei isn't just another Billionaire playboy, he is very chummy with the highest members of the ruling party. The Americans knew fully well what message they were sending when they snatched his daughter out of the Vancouver airport. The question is, how far will this go? What lengths will the Americans go to in order to shut Huawei down? Could they lean on Google to the point where Google services disable themselves on Huawei devices? Could they actually force countries like Canada to ban Huawei devices from using tele-communication networks? Let's step back for a moment, to just a couple of months ago. Keep in mind that both Huawei and ZTE phones are allowed to be used by the highest level of government in the U.K., in France, and in Germany. Do you really think that if there was any proof of any kind that these phones were uploading data, that these governments wouldn't have joined the United States in 'banning' them? Here in Canada, Huawei is the prime sponsor to 'Hockey Night in Canada'. What will happen if the Americans take things to the next level, and our phones start little by little becoming unusable? Can we honestly expect Huawei to expend a lot of effort to keep our firmware updated here in the West given the nonsense that is going on?
It is laughable to try and point fingers at these companies for the 'potential to spy' when we are being wrung dry for every bit of personal information possible by Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. Every piece of tech we own is made in China. This situation is getting scary though, and personally I cringe to say it but owning a brand new Huawei phone may be a losing proposition. We have dared to support a company that isn't entirely under the boot of the American petro-dollar Deep State MIC. Is this all just high stakes posturing between superpowers, or the final chess moves in a grand game played by the darkest of Puppeteers?
(don't get me started)
In India too about 95% sentiments are Anti-chinese goods coz they are claiming land belonging to India and that they are encouraging other neighbouring nations (you know which one) for border bullying and other stuffs (you know what).
But, nonetheless, the top market in India is OnePlus and Xiaomi. Technology at affordable cost will win irrespective of where it is coming from.
Irony will prevail, market will not fall only stock will and market shocks are short spanned. Bad days for Huawei but they will come out of it.
Businessmen and politicians never give up on anything
Pretty sure they can't ban certain phones from working, they work on spectrums which are universal across the carriers. I.E There is no way to determine the manufacture of a phone by the phone signal.
They could ban you from importing them though.
Luckily the UK where I live are being a bit more sensible about it and working with the company to iron out any security concerns. The main issue is with 5G, which I've heard Huawei are miles ahead of the competition.
You, sir, have some amazing vocabs and writing ability. Knowing how Huawei and China government works, I wouldn't be to worry about Huawei intentionally slowly down their devices in the western countries. I did make an acquaintance of a Huawei top brass a few years back. Don't be too worry about your device not receiving anymore updates.
The banning of apple phones in China was spurred by qualcomm. Both US companies sueing the crap out of each other in China. It is almost laughable.
Also I doubt Google will disable their services on Huawei devices. Firstly, Google is trying to re-enter the Chinese Market. Secondly, China phone producers would not lose a thing. They already have their own application stores and cloud drives made for the Chinese people. The whole ecosystem is there, with or without Google.
Really like your views and speculations. Cheers.
Phil750123 said:
Pretty sure they can't ban certain phones from working, they work on spectrums which are universal across the carriers. I.E There is no way to determine the manufacture of a phone by the phone signal.
They could ban you from importing them though.
Luckily the UK where I live are being a bit more sensible about it and working with the company to iron out any security concerns. The main issue is with 5G, which I've heard Huawei are miles ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying they would, but it is certainly possible to ban/blacklist imei's TAC and technically carriers could band together and create agreed upon blacklists for phones. I'm also guessing here that if a government wanted to ban certain vendors, then they could mandate that their carriers (carriers are obliged in most country's to operate under government authority) not allow IMEI TAC ranges. I'm commenting purely under technical merit, not legal.
I don't agree with sanctions against Iran but the US is free to pass sanctions agains Iran and the fact that other countries don't pass similar sanctions doesn't render them illegal. What the US government is claiming is that Huawei used shell companies with accounts at US banks and mislead those banks about the fact that the companies were engaged in trade activities that are illegal in the United States.
This might be a comolete political farce orchestrated by a US President that is beneath contempt but that doesn't mean you have a clue what you are talking about when you try to make arguments about what is legal and illegal.
I don't think there is any real possibility of Google being forced to remove its services from Huawei devices sold outside of China. Google has too much to lose as an international company to not vigorously fight any kind of law Trump might try to pass. Trump started his trade war with China to distract his supporters from the investigation into his ties with Putin and Russia and the day after Trump leaves office the trade war with China will be over. It has no support beyond the officials that are scrambling to keep Trump in office.
Phil750123 said:
Pretty sure they can't ban certain phones from working, they work on spectrums which are universal across the carriers. I.E There is no way to determine the manufacture of a phone by the phone signal.
They could ban you from importing them though.
Luckily the UK where I live are being a bit more sensible about it and working with the company to iron out any security concerns. The main issue is with 5G, which I've heard Huawei are miles ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
However they can determine the manufacturer using the Imei.........
panman1964 said:
However they can determine the manufacturer using the Imei.........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Manufacturer AND phone model actually.
giz02 said:
Manufacturer AND phone model actually.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
Sidebar (and going slightly off topic):
Have you considered modifying your signature so it doesn't take up so much space (eg look at mine)?
I love your take on this whole fiasco
panman1964 said:
Indeed.
Sidebar (and going slightly off topic):
Have you considered modifying your signature so it doesn't take up so much space (eg look at mine)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is your signature?
The concern about whether it is wise for US government employees to use Huawei phones because of the potential they could be used to spy on communications pre-dates Trump.
Those concerns never extended to consumers using Huawei phones and have nothing to do with Trump's China trade war or attacks on Huawei. This is just Trump being Trump. He is a moron, a bully, a liar and a crook and being president doesn't change any of that.
AT&T and Best Buy dropping the Mate 10 Pro was simply an act of cowardice and had nothing to do with US Law. The Mate 10 Pro was still sold on the shelf at Walmart, Sears, K-Mart and other stores in the United States and also directly from Amazon (unlike newer Huawei phones that are only available on Amazon through third party sellers).
Huawei phones were never illegal in the United States. Huawei chose to stay out of the US market after the Mate 10 Pro because it isn't worth the time, money or trouble at the present time.
The charges against the Huawei executive in Canada have nothing to do with Huawei phones.
ZTE Phones are no longer being attacked by the White House because they reportedly paid a hefty bribe to Trump in the form of subsidies for a resort he plans to build in Asia.
ZTE phones were never banned for use on US carriers. No phone brand has ever been banned for use on US networks or by US carriers.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the loud political posturing of Trump and actual law which are very different things.
Also, anyone who believes Juliane Assange at this point is gullible at best because Assange has obvious ties to Russian intelligence and acted as their outlet when they were trying to manipulate the presidential election on behalf of Trump.
I find it sad that some people here actually take the OP post seriously.
The only thing Trump did was sign a bill banning government and military purchases of a host of Chinese hardware. I'm sorry CNN promised you that Cankles would win. Huawei is the only communications company that makes their own chips, and as such they are enemy #1 to the alphabet agencies in the States - because they want to be the only ones spying on American citizens. The pressure on carriers and major outlets like Best Buy to drop their phones was because Huawei was going to stomp Samsung and Apple out of the entry level phone market, and then the high end phone market. It just isn't acceptable that Billionaires in China would make money on the backs of slave labour in Asia, instead of Billionaires in the United States making that money on the backs of slave labour - while not paying a nickel of tax. And yeah, perfectly normal for the CEO's daughter to be abducted out of an international airport in Canada based on.... sanctions against Iran that the U.N. Judiciary Council has unilaterally denounced how many times now? Just a coincidence that Huawei stock crashed from direct manipulation by western financial systems after China threatened a total ban on iPhones in China?
It doesn't matter *why* Huawei is being attacked from all sides. The fact is, they most certainly are. The laughable part to all this? They are under suspicion of 'spying' because their founder was a former member of the Chinese military. Uhhh.... ALL Chinese companies can be considered to be 'State controlled', and as far as 'potential spying', again you can say the same for any electronic equipment with networking capability that has ever been made in China. There has never been one iota of proof that Huawei or ZTE has uploaded one single packet of information back to President Xi's intelligence apparatus. Isn't it a little late for all this posturing, regardless? Aren't these two companies responsible for 80% of all the Internet hardware on the planet?
I'm concerned about this, because it doesn't look like we are going to get an unlocked bootloader - which puts us at the mercy of a fragile support for a fringe carrier phone here in North America. If the pressure on Huawei continues, I can see them slowly withdrawing from the Western market entirely. If this was a $400 phone, I wouldn't be too worried about the longevity of support.
Trump declares 'national emergency' to make way for Huawei ban (updated)
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/15/president-trump-national-emergency-for-telecom-networks/
President Trump today declared a national emergency, which could set up a huge blow to China's Huawei.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-national-emergency-china-huawei-2019-5
What I'm wondering about is whether this may affect Xiaomi phones too. Don't want to not be able to use my phone obviously.
BCE111 said:
Trump declares 'national emergency' to make way for Huawei ban (updated)
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/15/president-trump-national-emergency-for-telecom-networks/
President Trump today declared a national emergency, which could set up a huge blow to China's Huawei.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-national-emergency-china-huawei-2019-5
What I'm wondering about is whether this may affect Xiaomi phones too. Don't want to not be able to use my phone obviously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are going to ban Chinese phones so that google/apple can own you all.
Don't bring politics into this forum, especially his name
Face palm.......
Huawei has the power to crush Apple and if the deal went through a couple years ago, people found out how good their phones really were, it'd only be a matter of time.
I can see why the US Govt intervened from a business interest perspective (Apple being one of the largest US companies).
As for spying, how can we all sit there and forget what Edward Snowden said about ALL phone carriers spying at the National Security level and beyond?
How many years was that before Trump's Administration existed again?
And didn't Google just get in trouble for violating antitrust laws last week in India
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-antitrust-concerns-eu-fine-investigation-cci
right after being fined 1.7 billion for violating antitrust laws by the EU?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...lated-european-antitrust-laws/?outputType=amp
Two points:
1) IMHO this thread isn't really "political," as the Democrats in Congress have basically echoed what Trump is saying about Huawei.
2) The US government's issue with Huawei (to the best of my understanding) is that Huawei may be using its switches and other carrier-level and municipal-level equipment to engage in widespread spying on American public and government communications. Xiaomi, on the other hand, only sells smartphones to the US market, which isn't even its focus at the moment. So it's hard to see Uncle Sam getting all worked up over Xiaomi.
RaiderDuck said:
Two points:
1) IMHO this thread isn't really "political," as the Democrats in Congress have basically echoed what Trump is saying about Huawei.
2) The US government's issue with Huawei (to the best of my understanding) is that Huawei may be using its switches and other carrier-level and municipal-level equipment to engage in widespread spying on American public and government communications. Xiaomi, on the other hand, only sells smartphones to the US market, which isn't even its focus at the moment. So it's hard to see Uncle Sam getting all worked up over Xiaomi.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree, it's not political. And point #2 sounds right. You never know these days though with some of the irrational moves coming out of Washington. I think too some of the decision on Huawei may have also been based on their competition with Apple and Google who are big US political donors and lobbyists. And I was wondering too if Xiaomi's decision not to release the Redmi Note 7 Pro in the US, but also other markets other than India and China, was taken with this type thing in mind. Maybe they were spooked by the Huawei ban. But maybe, as they said, it was just a product development strategy.
tiguy99 said:
Face palm.......
Huawei has the power to crush Apple and if the deal went through a couple years ago, people found out how good their phones really were, it'd only be a matter of time.
I can see why the US Govt intervened from a business interest perspective (Apple being one of the largest US companies).
As for spying, how can we all sit there and forget what Edward Snowden said about ALL phone carriers spying at the National Security level and beyond?
How many years was that before Trump's Administration existed again?
And didn't Google just get in trouble for violating antitrust laws last week in India
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-antitrust-concerns-eu-fine-investigation-cci
right after being fined 1.7 billion for violating antitrust laws by the EU?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...lated-european-antitrust-laws/?outputType=amp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These are all really good points.