19 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 46.3 ms ] thread
Um, this is not an example of hypocrisy? If I punch you in the nose, I am not a hypocrite if I block your attempt to punch me back.
This makes sense if you assume that

1) Foreigners are all trying to punch you

2) Your government is not

3) The FCC is acting in the citizens' best interest and this is actually the best way to increase security for router consumers.

Are 2 and 3 valid assumptions at the moment? In the extremely polarized US, that probably depends on your political affiliation. From the outside, I can't tell if this is a power grab, protectionism or just a decision I cannot get behind. Vulnerabilities and backdoors in US network equipment prove that "Made in USA" does not necessarily improve security. What the ban does improve is the administration's control over what's sold.

None of these assumptions are required to avoid hypocrisy.
My company new installation now use Siemens routers. It seems a few will keep Cisco though, so we have yet another provider. More work for me I guess.
This is just geopolitics. You should've seen what the US and Europe did during the Cold War.
> country which once exploited an attack vector is now trying to protect itself on that vector

I have no doubt that American efforts at security on this front are inadaquate, incompetent, etc. But hypocritical? Nah.

> Country that put backdoors into Cisco routers to spy on world bans foreign routers

Says the tech rag hailing from the 5-eyes nation known as the UK...

If I was more paranoid, I'd start thinking the ban is to make it easier to spy on us by limiting our choices to a few domestic vendors who can be coerced by regulatory capture and "for the kids" political rhetoric.
The audacity of banning others for doing exactly what you got caught doing. At least be subtle about
In a competitive game, it is perfectly moral to want to win even if it means denying a win to your opponent.

The act of attacking does not make defending a sin.

If we set aside geopolitics and purely consider whether tightening the security of private networks is sensible whatsoever: are routers a substantially bigger threat than client devices such as the various IoT knickknacks (smart TVs, smart switches/outlets, smart appliances, etc.)? Controlling the NAT/firewall features is handy for opening ports and working around VLAN segmentation, but that isn't required for many scenarios; a compromised client device can often snoop on the rest of the network and exfiltrate what it discovers just fine even with an uncompromised router.
Unlike most IoT stuff, most routers don't have embedded cameras or ad telemetry, or serve ads.

If they did, they'd be untouchable (since the federal government could buy the data from brokers).

Israel did the same in Netherlands with the biggest telecom KPN.
And huawei too?
the ban covers all foreign-made consumer routers but practically every router is manufactured abroad, even the ones sold by American companies. the only domestic exception is Starlink, iirc