Grey Havoc
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 24,500
- Reaction score
- 18,170
Forgot to put this in:
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/29/huawei-asks-for-summary-judgment-vs-us/
Forgot to put this in:
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/29/huawei-asks-for-summary-judgment-vs-us/
LOL! I wasn't aware the US Constitution applied to other countries.
Forgot to put this in:
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/29/huawei-asks-for-summary-judgment-vs-us/
LOL! I wasn't aware the US Constitution applied to other countries.
It applies to non-US persons present in the US. It's not a huge stretch to suggest that it applies to non-US companies doing business in the US.
It's just a matter of how the law was written (which is to say, badly). Identifying certain behaviors or characteristics that would make a company subject to a ban, and then having the DoJ or DoD list Huawei as a company that exhibits those behaviors, would obvious be constitutional. Banning a company by name in legislation may well not be, in the same way that we can't pass a law that says a specific person must pay extra taxes or be sent to jail or whatever. It's a matter of adhering to basic principles of equity and due process.
Worth pointing out that US immigration does precisely the same thing. Both US and Chinese immigration can demand you unlock your phone then take it into a back room to strip your social media usage bare. The only difference here is the Chinese are sometimes forgetting to delete the search app they use afterwards (or are doing it deliberately to spread FUD). And seeing as it installs itself with an icon and you know who put it there, it doesn't really fit classic definitions of malware.