US ban on Hu initiates for Finland/Russia-Chinese mobile OS. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 03:13:06 pm
content: As part on current trade war Finland/Russia-Chinese have an mobile OS project going, do they have chance? Will it be one spy OS to just another but worser spy OS or pink unicorns on flowery meadows?https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/06/article/say-hello-to-the-russia-china-operating-system/?_=2923132Quote

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 03:37:14 pm
content: What's to stop them from simply using LineageOS? Seems like that would be a lot less effort.

author: ealex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 06:03:09 pm
content: It looks like it's based on Android / Cyanogen / Lineage OS.page 9 fromhttps://sailfishos.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SailfishOS-HardwareAdaptationDevelopmentKit-3.0.1.0.pdfPREREQUISITES: "An ARM Android device officially supported by CyanogenMod/LineageOS 10.1.x, 11.0, 12.1, 13.0, 14.1, 15.1 (at the time of writing 2019-03-14). "(they also state it's 100% compatible with android apps)

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 06:39:25 pm
content: America is dreaming of a glorious past when it ruled the world. America needs to wake up to the reality of a new world.The mobile phone market of China is four times that of America.America's market is not even 5% of the world's total.Let's get real.Wikipedia:

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 08:57:51 pm
content: The pure numbers of active mobile phones is misleading. The average US phone is way more expensive than the Chinese or Indian ones and they tend to be used much longer in the less developed countries. So when it come to sales and revenues the US market is still important.If the new OS is still based on Linux / Android the step is not that great - it's more like a marketing question, not so much about technical skills. AFAIK the normal Google/Android app store is not available in China anyway - so they do already have the parallel infrastructure. Providing the service also in other countries would not be such a big step. Not everybody is happy with Apples and Google anyway - so chances are they will also get the new apps and may even get a foot in the US. Maybe not HU... directly, but a separate App.-shop company.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 09:09:39 pm
content: They have been developing that stuff for years. It never goes anywhere past a few prototypes to show to Putin.May be if bans become too bad, it might go somewhere. But the current situation is far from that.

author: tangelo
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 09:17:18 pm
content: Sailfish has been around for some time now (circa 2012-2013). If I recall correctly it was the successor of "MeeGo" which was a joint Nokia/Intel endeavour. MeeGo being the successor of "Maemo" which was 100% Nokia stuff.I have no idea about this Russian fork of Sailfish that Huawei is eyeing tho.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 09:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on June 18, 2019, 08:57:51 pmAnd you base that on what? Do you have any hard data? Because my experience is the opposite. Chinese people depend more on their phones for payments and other things than western people do. Have a look at this posthttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/paypal-policy-update/msg2324796/#msg2324796Also, in China phones are status symbols and people have the best they can afford. Maybe they cannot afford big bungalows like in America but by golly they can afford the huge TVs and the latest phones. And more and more really nice cars.I think most western people are just not aware of the development that has taken place in China. The market for automobiles is also much bigger in China than in America.So, again, where do you get your data that the average US phone is way more expensive than the Chinese phone?Also, take into account that the same amount of money will get you a much better phone in China.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2019, 09:47:28 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 18, 2019, 09:25:59 pmWell, I am always amazed by the electronics I see everywhere in China. Especially because all the mobile phones I have ever had have been hand-me-downs from my wife's family who just love changing phones. They recently gave me a Samsung S7 Edge which I refuse to use because I don't want to use Android.At any rate, a more expensive phone and a cheaper phone are not going to differ much in their OS which is what we are talking about here.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 12:02:32 am
content: Quote from: soldar on June 18, 2019, 06:39:25 pmThere is no way in the world we should trust our infrastructure and national security to China. There is bound to be an embedded OFF switch. We can wait for a US or allied source, there's no big hurry to change over.As you say, the US is a small market, China can get along very well without it.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 12:20:02 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 19, 2019, 12:15:23 am(Un)fortunately this is not how it works in the National Security and Intelligence community.

author: ebclr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 01:56:29 am
content: Do what I talk, don't do what I do

author: awallin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 04:00:25 am
content: Quote from: tangelo on June 18, 2019, 09:17:18 pmhere's some historyhttps://muropaketti.com/mobiili/the-story-of-nokia-meego/it's a bit sad that the whole microsoft-mess killed nokias linux based OS development...IIRC the N9 was actually fairly decent phone and further developments from there could have gone well?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 10:14:47 am
content: (I'm personally still a bit pissed about being labeled as a conspiracy theorist when Stephen Elop became CEO of Nokia in 2010, because we predicted he'd run Nokia's Linux efforts to the ground and the company eventually to Microsoft control.)It is not hard at all to build a dedicated operating system and user interface on top of the Linux kernel, if the hardware is supported in vanilla Linux kernels (and thus by gcc and binutils toolchains). Any hobbyist with a bit of experience could do it, really. The problem is that manufacturers still believe they need to keep key parts of the hardware support layers secret/closed/proprietary to be able to compete; theydo not wanttheir hardware supported by open source code in vanilla Linux kernels, due to internal politics or contractual obligations. This is slowly starting to change for some manufacturers like Samsung, though. There is surprising amount of inertia from developers who dislike trying to push stuff upstream too; instead, preferring to fork the kernel and "maintain" it themselves. For one, pushing stuff upstream means one has to format the code properly, and then submit it to be harshly evaluated on its merits only by people completely out of your control. It is not easy for anyone used to dealing only with corporate bureaucracy. Even porting a driver from a forked Android kernel to vanilla Linux kernels is nontrivial!The hard part is the everything-else. It's like manufacturing and selling footballs. (See, I didn't say cars!) Why would anyone choose yours? It's not like it isthatdifferent. It is about marketing. Branding. Long-term planning -- notoriously hard for company used to deal with the next quarter at longest.It is much more about politics and branding than anything technical.And that means these talks about custom Linux/Android derivatives is absolutely about politics and branding, and not anything technical.You do not need to hide root holes in the core OS, either; it is much easier (fewer eyes looking too) to do it in the privileged support bits, or even apps. The messier the code, the complex the operation, and the fewer active developers it has, the easier it is to hide nefarious tricks in it. The kernel or OS support bits aint that.

author: tangelo
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 01:06:38 pm
content: Quote from: awallin on June 19, 2019, 04:00:25 amYeah. Everyone I know who had N9 loved it and would have loved to see it on future phones from Nokia as well.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 08:17:05 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 19, 2019, 12:26:22 amAt no point did I suggest that.Did anyone stop to think for a moment that there is evidence of Huawei being up to no good? Just because that information isn't public, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that Huawei's CFO has been arrested doesn't look good either. This whole issue seems to be a huge overreaction if it were merely based on guessing and speculation.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 08:36:37 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 19, 2019, 08:17:05 pmSorry but I am old enough to have heard that too many times from too many governments. Remember Iraq? "Trust us, we have the evidence". But they didn't. That's how most wars are started: with lies. Who will bring back the dead? Who will pay for the displaced? The damages?Sorry but if they do not show the evidence I have to assume they do not have any. I am pretty sure in this case it is a very safe bet.Quote from: Halcyon on June 19, 2019, 08:17:05 pmHuawei's CEO has not been arrested. His daughter has been arrested at America's request under charges that have absolutely nothing to do with Huawei building back doors into their products.I see America's smear campaigns are effective. Vague and unsupported insinuations and accusations and Huawei is guilty. Of something to be determined at a later date. Or maybe not. It doesn't matter. We declare war on them just in case.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 08:42:34 pm
content: There is no need to provide facts! They are probably hate speech anyway.Just label that nasty person a conspiracy nut, get someone to decide that some consensual sex they had was a rape, or just do a straightforward smear campaign,and people will treat that person guilty anyway. After all, nobody sane listens to a conspiracy nut or someone suspected of rape.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 08:54:14 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 19, 2019, 08:36:37 pmSorry, typo, I meant CFO.Quote from: soldar on June 19, 2019, 08:36:37 pmOr you're not privy to it. Believe it or not, intelligence agencies have secrets.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2019, 09:22:34 pm
content: Nobody has even said they have any evidence. And when the US Government said they had evidence it has turned out to be a lie.Sorry. I have been fooled to many times already. As far as I am concerned the credibility of the American Government is zero.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 01:49:10 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 19, 2019, 12:20:02 amIn my opinion, Halcyon's reply here is a very important point. If anything, it is understated. When the issues concerns national security and intelligence, even the possibility of exposure should be avoided.To avoid present day emotions, lets use a historical era (WW II) for analogy. Before Germany declared war on the USA, Canada & Britian were likely US allies, and Germany and some others were likely US adversaries. Routing US military-secret messages through Canada to Britain would not be surprising, but for the USA to route military secret messages via Romania and Germany to Britain would have been a nutty thing to do. Some you can trust based on the geopolitics of the time, and some you either don't yet trust or expect soon to be adversaries.A second point:We discussed two issues here, but we should not conflate the two: sanction vs spying. Not buying from firms under trade sanction for breaking trade rules is an entirely different issue than not buying from X to avoid the possibility of being spied on.Frankly, everybody spies. Not doing business with "suspects" (and/or not doing business with those "trust not yet established") is not a mean to punish, but rather a mean to merely avoid exposure.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 08:44:06 am
content: So governments operate in secret and are not obligated to explain themselves? I guess that applies to other countries like Iran and China. Why would they have any obligation to explain themselves to the U.S.A.?So the question here is, since they operate in secret, who has more credibility, America or China. At this point in time for me it is China without a doubt. They appear to be the calm, rational ones in this dispute. And most of the world seems to think that way so I am not alone. The EU has pretty much sided with China on this and America is the one left standing alone. A rogue nation as it were. A danger to stability and peace.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 09:33:28 am
content: I don't know why people have blind faith in secret government organisations with no oversight, while they have zero confidence (and a lot of contempt) for any government agency that's transparent and has a lot of oversight.The U.S. lied to everyone about weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ so there is no reason to trust anything they say anymore. And if there was any evidence of Chinese spying through Huawei why is the UK and Spain considering allowing Huawei in their countries?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 10:24:19 am
content: Quote from: apis on June 20, 2019, 09:33:28 amI think it is pretty muchStockolm syndrome. Humans need to feel they belong in some group and will defend what they believe is their group against outsiders. And governments exploit that by making us believe they are protecting us and whatever bad they might do the other guys are worse.Millions of Americans believe Huawei is bad even if they cannot really articulate why. Their government says so and that is enough.At the root it is the same thing that makes battered women defend the men that beat them and return to them time after time. You take away her man and she feels "unprotected". Interesting psychology there.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2019, 05:27:57 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 20, 2019, 10:24:19 amIn high school psychology, I learned the so called circle of closeness. Self, then next ring is the immediate family, then close friends, then extended family, so on. Whether that is right or wrong, I do observed that we do tend to defend our own inner ring against threats from the outer. We do tend to prefer benefits going into our inner ring rather than outer. Who here would prefer to see his/her enemy-at-work to become your boss verses your friend becoming your boss?That brings me to your second point - Huawei. It is not so much that it is bad as a company, it is that we (USA and China) are in competition - overtly or by default. Whichever side you are on, it is bad if the competition is strong, it is worst if the competition is stronger. In that sense, it is bad for the USA if Huawei is growing in strength.Companies spy against its competition. That is normal. A companies who didn't paid enough attention to their competitor's products or their competitors plans will not be around for long. It is only troublesome when such spying is done illegally. Government spies too - often illegally. How many British agent did the Nazi's executed during WW II? Government spying illegally may not be gentlemanly but it is a common and an expected practice.Here is the troublesome part: What happens when a company spies on behalf of a government?Fortune Magazine, July, 2011 article: "What makes China telecom Huawei so scary?""Huawei’s media-shy founder and CEO, Ren Zhengfei, once served in the People’s Liberation Army as a telecom technician, and that the company (like AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon in the U.S.) is a military and government contractor in its home country."http://fortune.com/2011/07/28/what-makes-china-telecom-huawei-so-scary/]Full article: http://fortune.com/2011/07/28/what-makes-china-telecom-huawei-so-scary/It is not even Huawei per se, rather, it is who would be the dominant force in 5G infrastructure.I do not trust government. I do not trust companies either. I can afford trust to individuals to the extend I think I can figure the individual's motive.Huawei per se is the not issue. When it come to supplying and supporting the infrastructure that may be used for strategic information or military information, I would assume whichever side one is on, one would prefer not be spied upon by one's adversary... One would not risk the case that the company in question got pressured into spying for their own nation.Frankly, if it is spying purely for profit motive and not for government/military purpose, I pick a Chinese phone OS over a Google OS or an Amazon OS any day, and any time of the day. At least a Chinese phone OS likely wont track me into a mall and push product ads in my face, or listen in on my conversation over my dinner table - until they do.

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 01:09:42 am
content: Quote from: awallin on June 19, 2019, 04:00:25 amIt sure is a shame, I still use my N9 everyday, it's a fantastic phone. I initially bought two (one was a spare) and the first died after about 6 years of daily use.It is also a pleasure to SSH into as its a real Linux environment inside.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 06:17:24 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 21, 2019, 01:58:52 amNo disagreement there, former military people are going to be all over the private sector... I am sure the US Military Academies trained many who ended very high up in the private sector in their post-military careers. According to payscale.com's mid-career salary ranking by universities, 3rd highest is US Naval Academy, 8th is West Point, and 16th is the US Air Force Academy. Generals and Admirals do make sizable dollars, but there isn't that many Generals and Admirals to pull the average up so high - so most of numbers must have come from the private sectors for such high average.Nothing wrong with it - just as I said before, most of us want "our own side" to win. That is how competition should be.As to the risk, heck, we just have decide to live with it or decide to spend more for the peace of mind.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 08:16:52 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on June 21, 2019, 06:17:24 am"Our own side" is, in many ways, a very artificial construct. Governments and authorities convince their people that there is an outside threat, a danger that must be dealt with. This unites the people in their support for the government which is the intended response. Most of these threats are very exaggerated, if not totally made up from whole cloth.The phenomenon explains Nazism and most other nationalisms. Most people will support their group and their government even when it is doing things that are stupid or plain evil as long as it is doing them to outsiders.A healthy competition is good for everybody. Destabilizing the game with extreme measures is bad for everybody.We can choose how we define the group and how we define the game. Playing soccer and winning by shooting an opposite player in the back of the head ruins the game for everyone, including the shooter.Germans with any sense of morality did not support their government in the evil things it was doing. Americans with any sense of morality do not support their government in the evil things it is doing. But the majority of people have little to no sense of morality and that is true of any people in any country.We can choose how we define our group. Germans considered Jews to be outsiders. Whites in America considered blacks to be outside their group and that's the way it was for a long time but that changed and blacks are now included in the fellowship.First world nations that are blocking the arrival of refugees and causing them to die and making it a crime to save their lives by helping them not die are immorally criminal and in no position to preach anything to anybody. Moral people are not the ones who follow the law but the ones who defy the authorities and save lives. This is happening in many places today and it is a disgrace and a shame and history will judge us harshly.After WWII some European nations who had been fighting wars for centuries decided cooperation might be better and they founded the EU. they redefined "us".Again, we can choose the rules of the game so that they lead to a healthy competition and not to confrontation. Those playing by the rules are competitors, not enemies. We should submit to the referees' calls because otherwise there is no game.When we are trying to play soccer and a big, burly player punches an opponent in the face, that is the end of the game and the beginning of something else which is definitely not soccer.Maybe we could start by redefining "our group". Maybe we should make the whole world "our group" and seek peace and cooperation and healthy competition. For now we prefer to cling to our privileges even if it costs others their lives but, make no mistake about it, a world where a small percentage live in privilege, using up resources, while the majority live in misery, such a world is unsustainable. Not to mention morally evil.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 07:03:38 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 21, 2019, 08:16:52 amRemember: However small the probability, given enough time, it is a mathematical certainty that it will happen.Great, now that there is just one, what happens when Nazism returns? There would be no one else left to fight evil. Given time, people will elect fools, people will elect evil. It is just a matter of time when smart people make a dumb choices.My opinion is: making nations bigger merely make the structural problem bigger. The problem is oneof conflict resolutionand not oneof size. Catalonia (Spain) independence movement shows size merely relabeled the conflict from national to regional and did nothing to resolve the problem itself. The solution is to resolve conflicts with civility and not with force. Until we can solve the problem of smart people making dumb mistakes, I'd rather think it is not too smart to make the bucket larger and put more eggs into it.I am with BlueSkull. I have enough of this discussion - I'll let someone else have the last word.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 07:56:04 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on June 19, 2019, 10:14:47 amWhy the heck should you be pizzed? Be pleased instead, wear it as a badge of honor to be smeared by morons who thinks conspiracy theory is not real. Conspiracy theorists means people who theorizing on a done conspiracy, a conspiracy in the making etc, nothing strange there. First , the term was invented by CIA long time ago, its documented, and its purpose was to be a smear tool on anyone who questioned and exposed CIA pysops=falseflags=conspiracies, thats all to it. The term "conspiracy" can easily be exchanged to "planning" and the derogatory meaning goes away.Those accusing anyone for conspiracy theory are idiots as it's even part of US legislations, its there for a reason, e.g:18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United Stateshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371People who accuses others for conspiracy theorizing are so boxed in their thinking about their reality whats real without even knowing and executing the fundamental philosophy test of reality it's embarrassing. Nor do they read Sun Tzu,Gustave Le Bon, Mark Twain, George Orwell and so on rather swallow MSM and gov propaganda to 99%.As long as societies dont do MRI scans and psychology tests on anyone who seeks power planet will look as it does.And the Nokia deal was strange to say the least.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2019, 09:20:02 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on June 21, 2019, 07:03:38 pmI assume you mean the U.S. is too big and resolving conflicts with force. Yes, that is the big problem and why we need to strengthen the United Nations so we can solve conflicts civilly (as the rest of the world is trying to do) and not like the U.S. does, with force. Sadly the U.S. have been actively undermining the United Nations and sabotaging international diplomatic negotiations with e.g. Iran and we are now on the brink of another big war in the middle east.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2019, 07:38:48 am
content: Quote from: soldar on June 20, 2019, 08:44:06 amSometimes, yes, absolutely!Not everything a Government does is suitable for publication. It's the reason why Government agencies have security clearances and "need to know" policies in place. You and I as a member of the public have no business or right to know what goes on behind many of the closed doors.Even in my organisation, I am sworn to secrecy about certain things and it's a federal offence for me to disclose things without proper authority. Even employees who I work with who don't have a need to know, can't know about certain things.Welcome to Earth.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2019, 10:18:32 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 22, 2019, 07:38:48 amNo one has questioned the need for secrecy in very limited fields like national security and military and even then there should be strict limits.Allow a government to claim "national security" for anything it does not want to justify and you are well on your way to an authoritarian dictatorship, if not already there.The fact that America has secret courts, secret black lists, secret orders that cannot be divulged by those receiving them is totally unacceptable from my point of view. Governments should operate in the open for everyone to see.If a government finds out a citizen has broken the law then the citizen should have all the right to due process in open court and if the government thinks they would have to disclose things they would rather not disclose then they can just decide to not prosecute. But operating in secret lends itself to abuse much worse than not prosecuting a guy or two.Because once you allow the government to say "just believe me, I have the proof" then you have given up all your rights. One day the government takes your neighbor and says "we have reasons we can't divulge, shut up and go home or you will be next".We are talking about a commercial dispute with Huawei here. Not military nuclear submarine technology vital for defense. No, it is a routine commercial matter entirely invented by America. If they have any proof they should show it and if they don't, which I am pretty sure they don't, they should shut up. They can show it in American courts, in international courts, where ever they prefer. But they claim they are seeing something which nobody else can see. Why is it that European governments cannot see this supersekrit evidence?We have many examples in recent history where governments cooked up all sorts of lies to support starting wars. Pretty much all wars started by America in the last sixty years were justified with "secret information, trust us" which pretty much all of them turned out to be lies. Lies and wars that cost millions of lives and untold displaced and misery. No thanks. If we need to start a war I want to know why. I am not trusting immoral scoundrels and liars.QuoteAmerica has already passed this point.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2019, 11:24:11 am
content: Well. I disagree with your views.I agree, that anyone accused of a crime should be entitled to a fair trial. However, I don't agree that Governments should operate under complete scrutiny of the public (or even public courts for that matter).I know it's hard to get your mind around it unless you've had experience in such matters, but there are things which are happening every day, right under your nose, which you have absolutely no right to know about, but helps ensure your safety and security as a citizen.It's a hard concept to explain to someone who hasn't been there or doesn't have the need to know. Even my involvement is a drop in the ocean in comparison, but the system is built that way for a reason.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2019, 12:07:45 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 22, 2019, 11:24:11 amWell, that is the justification for any government, no matter how tyrannical. That is the justification for governments, like China, that put "National Interest" before "Rule of Law".I prefer Rule of Law to an arbitrary "National Interest" which is defined solely by those who benefit from the secrecy. The purported national interest is generally the interests of the powerful, not of the common people.I do not like a government who can start wars, arrest and punish people, etc. without first going through an open and clear legal process.And, again, most times secret reasons are claimed they turn out to be BS. That is enough justification for me to not accept it.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2019, 10:57:46 pm
content: I can't speak for China, but you realise that most western Governments operate within "the rule of law". You might not agree with those laws but they are there so that Governments can exercise their powers both overtly and covertly in order to protect the interests of the nation and its citizens, this isn't like Hollywood.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2019, 09:23:31 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 22, 2019, 10:57:46 pm"Rule of Law" is not a yes/no thing. It is a continuum. No country operates at 100% under the rule of law.A law saying "Hitler can do whatever he deems in the bests interests of the German Reich and it's all good" might make things "legal" but that is not rule of law, it is rule of Hitler.You can argue that the National Interest requires some disagreeable things but that is a different topic. What I am saying is that when the government can listen to your conversations in secret, with no warrant or with a secret warrant, it is the same, then that does not fall under the Rule of Law.You can believe that killing and torturing in secret are necessary for the National Interest and many people would agree with you, but that is not Rule of Law by any stretch of the imagination.Rule of Law does not only mean there are laws in the books mandating due process; it also means that those laws are effective in protecting individuals and groups. If you have wonderful laws but they are not effective due to corruption, inobservance, disorder, etc. then there is no Rule of Law even if the good laws are on the books. Again, this is a continuum.Things done in secret and without recourse by those who suffer damage are, by the very definition of "Rule of Law", outside of the "Rule of Law". There is no way around it. If the government can take life, liberty or property without due process where the individual can defend himself, then there is no Rule of Law.When a government can take private property without compensation and without any judicial process, when the government can just steal property, then there is no Rule of Law in that respect.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_StatesWhen a government can lock a person up for years without any judicial process, that is, by its very nature, outside the Rule of Law.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-lawsuit-idUSKBN0IP04N20141105When a government is committing Human Rights abuses that is outside the Rule of Law.When people, especially infants, in detention are sick and dying due to mistreatment and lack of basic care, that is not Rule of Law.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/4-severely-ill-migrant-toddlers-hospitalized-after-lawyers-visit-border-patrol-facility/ar-AADeueLhttps://gizmodo.com/u-s-government-says-its-not-required-to-provide-migran-1835688631When a government is operating torture prisons where the prisoners have no judicial process, that is not Rule of Law.When a government has secret, unappealable lists that restrict people's liberties, such as the no-fly lists, that is not Rule of Law.When a government has secret warrants, secret orders, secret subpoenas, secret processes, all of which the public is prohibited from talking about, that is not Rule of Law.When police shoot and kill innocent people, with impunity, with the frequency they do in America, without reason and without recourse, that is not rule of Law.When a country has a prison population per capita that is huge when compared to any other similar country, and when minorities are way over-represented in the prison population, then you do not have Rule of Law.Now, some may think these things are good and necessary for the national interests and security. Well, that is a totally different discussion but my point is that you cannot say "rule of law is defined as what I do and bad things are what the other guy does, even if we are doing the same things".Like Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men you can believe the Law is only a suggestion and it is OK to do things outside the Law if necessary. Well, we can discuss each case, but you can't say you are inside the Rule of Law.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 23, 2019, 12:24:07 pm
content: Another thread completely derailed into the Iraq war and other politics. Seems people can't keep things on topic.Locked.