| ▲ | danso 12 hours ago |
| Why shouldn’t people have a reaction to a policy that mandates a new approval process on a large class of consumer products? |
|
| ▲ | sam345 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's fine to have a reaction. It just rhat a lot of the comments totally ignored this this caveat. So basically, as I read it by default, they're banned unless approved, which is pretty much what all regulation does anyway, isn't it. |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | During the last years USA has banned a lot of things by default, but in all cases there were exemptions for things receiving specific approvals. However, the approvals appear to have not been based on any objective methodology, but sometimes nothing has been approved, while otherwise there may have been some approvals but their randomness was suspicious. Now this new interdiction continues the trend, so it is normal for people to be wary that any approvals will be based on some kind of bribing and not on any serious security audit. |
|
|
| ▲ | wtallis 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Especially since the announcement provides no information about how the DoD or DHS will be evaluating what to approve, and it's unlikely that they have the resources to do any meaningful security evaluation on that many products. |
| |
| ▲ | sam345 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The DOH and DOW have a lot of resources. And I would guess the DOW has a lot of intelligence resources and most likely the DOH also I mean it is their job to keep the homeland safe. But I would agree. It probably will involve a lot of marshaling of those resources and reorganization. But who's to say they haven't done that already. My general point is that the conversation in this thread completely ignores that this is an imposition of a different regulatory scheme, not a banning. And actually it's in favor of enforcing more security on routers which everybody has been screaming for for years. |
|
|
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |