US bans approval of new technology from China's Huawei and ZTE for 'national security

[netnode]

US bans approval of new Huawei and ZTE equipment from China

The US Federal Communications Commission says new equipment from China's Huawei and ZTE pose "an unacceptable risk" to US national security, amid fears the technology could be used to surveil Americans.

www.abc.net.au

Going to have huge issues replacing any faulty Hikvision and Dahua equipment in the US.

 

[fenderman]

US bans approval of new Huawei and ZTE equipment from China

The US Federal Communications Commission says new equipment from China's Huawei and ZTE pose "an unacceptable risk" to US national security, amid fears the technology could be used to surveil Americans.

www.abc.net.au

Going to have huge issues replacing any faulty Hikvision and Dahua equipment in the US.

This is not accurate. The ban only affects devices
"to the extent it is used for the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, including telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entity or using such equipment"

List of Equipment and Services Covered By Section 2 of The Secure Networks Act

www.fcc.gov

Moreover, it does not cover existing products already approved. It simply directs the FCC not to approve any future products.

 

[DLONG2]

That's reassuring.

 

[netnode]

Moreover, it does not cover existing products already approved. It simply directs the FCC not to approve any future products.

Wouldn't those future products include updated products to what's currently existing? If so, then it would be difficult due to "public safety" to purchase any updated gear?

Public safety is very a very wide statement, are there any guidelines as to what is considered public safety?

 

[wittaj]

One of many threads discussing it

FCC to ban sales of some Chinese video products

Just saw this: On Oct. 5, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel circulated a draft order among her fellow commissioners. The order — which still needs to be voted on — would effectively ban new equipment sales in the U.S. from firms that pose a threat to national security, two sources with direct...

ipcamtalk.com

 

[fenderman]

Wouldn't those future products include updated products to what's currently existing? If so, then it would be difficult due to "public safety" to purchase any updated gear?

Public safety is very a very wide statement, are there any guidelines as to what is considered public safety?

You are confused and reading too much into it. Public safety relates to government use. The cameras will be available for personal and business use.

PUBLIC SAFETY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of PUBLIC SAFETY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. The role of looking after the public's safety. A state, federal or local organisation that looks afetr the safety og the public. It can contain memebers...

thelawdictionary.org

 

[john-ipvm]

Public safety relates to government use. The cameras will be available for personal and business use

You sure about that? I agree about something that is purely personal use (e.g. a heart rate monitor) but surveillance equipment even for business use is generally viewed as public safety. Indeed, even Dahua said its equipment was for public safety repeatedly until it realized that it could try to use this as a loophole, see Dahua Lies Saying Its Equipment Not Intended For Public Safety

 

[fenderman]

You sure about that? I agree about something that is purely personal use (e.g. a heart rate monitor) but surveillance equipment even for business use is generally viewed as public safety. Indeed, even Dahua said its equipment was for public safety repeatedly until it realized that it could try to use this as a loophole, see Dahua Lies Saying Its Equipment Not Intended For Public Safety

I'm 100% sure about that. If the government wanted specifically exclude its use for business surveillance it would have used a different term. Public safety is the government use to protect the public that's how it's always been used. It is also evident from the context of the other prohibited uses. Only an idiot would think otherwise. I understand though that you need to make a hoopla out of it.
Dahua is 100 percent accurate when it says:
"References to public safety within the context of our marketing to business customers is intended to refer to the security of the general public within their premises ". You understand that as well, but admitting same would make your article less appealing.

 

[wittaj]

You sure about that? I agree about something that is purely personal use (e.g. a heart rate monitor) but surveillance equipment even for business use is generally viewed as public safety. Indeed, even Dahua said its equipment was for public safety repeatedly until it realized that it could try to use this as a loophole, see Dahua Lies Saying Its Equipment Not Intended For Public Safety

That is just a play on words at this point. EVERY company plays on words when it comes to marketing. Remember all the face masks we were required to wear yet they all had disclaimers on them? Every car manufacturer gives an estimated MPG that most of us never realize. McDonalds has to tell you their coffee is hot. When can come up with marketing lies for EVERY company or product. I am sure there is something in the IPVM "About Us" section or some other area that a company or another organization could take exception to and say you are lying.... Plus you have had articles that basically supported IPVM leading the charge in getting this stuff banned....doesn't sound independent to me.

Of course if the police are using it, it is for public safety. Not so to the average homeowner. Dahua in their response to you said "Dahua products are not meant for customers covered by the NDAA, which broadly includes organizations involved in national security and public security services." So clearly they are not trying to market it to public agencies, but rather ensure that the average homeowner that wants cameras better than the consumer cloud based stuff available are aware they can still purchase these cameras.

 

[john-ipvm]

So clearly they are not trying to market it to public agencies, but rather ensure that the average homeowner

Dahua USA primarily markets to businesses, which they make clear on their website, e.g., excerpted below, of the 6 areas shown, 5 are for businesses:

Public safety is the government use to protect the public that's how it's always been used. It is also evident from the context of the other prohibited uses. Only an idiot would think otherwise

As someone who has worked in security and surveillance for two decades now, the concept of "public safety" being broader than just government use is commonplace and that's why, e.g. Dahua marketed for "public safety" for years because it's that well understood. Ultimately, though, the FCC will make the decision of how it interprets public safety and you may wind up calling them idiots too.

 

[fenderman]

Dahua USA primarily markets to businesses, which they make clear on their website, e.g., excerpted below, of the 6 areas shown, 5 are for businesses:

View attachment 146627



As someone who has worked in security and surveillance for two decades now, the concept of "public safety" being broader than just government use is commonplace and that's why, e.g. Dahua marketed for "public safety" for years because it's that well understood. Ultimately, though, the FCC will make the decision of how it interprets public safety and you may wind up calling them idiots too.

Again, you are smarter than that. So my only conclusion is that your are doing this intentionally because IPVM loves a salacious story and the opportunity to trash dahua hik because they killed business to your membership by allowing us to purchase cams at a fraction of the price it would cost via your members. Public safety as a marketing term is different that public safety in legislation and even more so in the context is used in this case. No I will call you the idiot, you pretend not to understand basic English or legislative intent when you do.

You also understood that when wittaj said public agencies he meant government. Yet you pretend not to understand. Funny though how the screenshot you posted is mostly about loss prevention and analytics to business. Your bullshit lies are shameful.

 

[john-ipvm]

No I will call you the idiot.

That's fine. If you can't imagine that someone would legitimately disagree on something, that's your issue, not mine. I would find the argument equally unconvincing if Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, or whoever claimed their surveillance products were not intended for public safety. The experience of IPCamTalk is generally on the home side, mine is on the commercial side where public safety is a normal application for all sorts of surveillance products, regardless of what country they come from.

 

[fenderman]

That's fine. If you can't imagine that someone would legitimately disagree on something, that's your issue, not mine. I would find the argument equally unconvincing if Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, or whoever claimed their surveillance products were not intended for public safety. The experience of IPCamTalk is generally on the home side, mine is on the commercial side where public safety is a normal application for all sorts of surveillance products, regardless of what country they come from.

Again, plain meaning, context and legislative intent. I know you are smarter than that. So I'm calling you out on deliberately misrepresenting your own view.

 

[sebastiantombs]

Kind of ironic. It was just "turkey day". Turkeys puff out their chests and spread their fans trying to impress.

It's obvious you're just being obtuse John.

 

[cctv-dave]

It's like the same silly things which every article says about Dahua being partly government owned.
Its 100% true.
Every company in China listed on the stock exchange must give a percentage of their shares to the chinese government. About 5%.
A bit stupid in context isnt it.

Then of course John and his articles like to be a bit sensational.
He's in that market segment, appealing to the good old boys who long for the old days of western manufactured CCTV products before the Chinese started a race to the bottom.
But John lives in an echo chamber so is just a little biased in his bigotted ramblings.

Everyone wants a Bogeyman, but overlooks that every single fortune 500 company has out sourced US jobs in every industy to China and continue to do so in order to make massive profits, whilst the US gov is suggesting China are the enemy.
So who is the real enemy here ?
Anyone going to boycott US companies for making everything in China via Chinese teams and OEM, and slapping a brand name on it?
Thought not.

 

[wittaj]

Dahua USA primarily markets to businesses, which they make clear on their website, e.g., excerpted below, of the 6 areas shown, 5 are for businesses:

View attachment 146627



As someone who has worked in security and surveillance for two decades now, the concept of "public safety" being broader than just government use is commonplace and that's why, e.g. Dahua marketed for "public safety" for years because it's that well understood. Ultimately, though, the FCC will make the decision of how it interprets public safety and you may wind up calling them idiots too.

Again, I wouldn't call a private business a "public safety" entity as it applies legally. If so, then Walmart wouldn't have to pay for off-duty police officers to patrol their facilities....

There are probably thousands of devices on the market that are marketed as "public safety"...it is a feel good phrase. Buy mace it is for public safety. Buy the viper car alarm for public safety, etc. Walk in groups, not alone for public safety. It is a marketing term as it relates to this stuff.

Entities that get taxpayer money to operate is much different than a private business or residence.

There is no story here. Dahua is simply changing how they market in light of new legislation to make it clearer to the consumer. EVERY company does that.

Now if they were trying to skirt the NDAA, then maybe you have an argument, but they are clear in their response to you that NDAA facilities are not their intended market.

In fact they went one step further and said "Dahua goes to substantial lengths to mitigate the risk of NDAA covered organizations inadvertently purchasing our products and we have suggested to the FCC additional disclosure measures we’d be open to implementing, such as a sticker affixed to our packaging."

So clearly their marketing is not trying to sell to agencies that shouldn't purchase their gear.

 

[cctv-dave]

To my knowledge, the only companies prosecuted for flouting the NDAA have been registered and owned in America.

 

[wittaj]

In reality, since police departments have partnered with Ring to gain access to Ring video that is cloud based under the name of public safety, there is probably a much more risk of the enemy gaining access to stuff than thru the Dahua and Hikvision products that can be isolated from the internet....

Or any manufacturer that has cloud based services. Even high end Axis.

Even NDAA compliant Verkada was hacked and 150,000 cameras in private companies, along with prisons and public school systems were part of it, which would be government funded..

150,000 security cameras hacked, exposing Tesla, prisons, hospitals

Hackers gained access through a 'Super Admin' account, allowing them to peer into the cameras

www.business-standard.com

 

[fenderman]

That's fine. If you can't imagine that someone would legitimately disagree on something, that's your issue, not mine. I would find the argument equally unconvincing if Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, or whoever claimed their surveillance products were not intended for public safety. The experience of IPCamTalk is generally on the home side, mine is on the commercial side where public safety is a normal application for all sorts of surveillance products, regardless of what country they come from.

Guess you failed to read the Report and Order before publishing your nonsense. Right from the report. Page 85. I expect a correction on IPVM and an apology here. Your two decades of expertise notwithstanding. If you are going to cover an issue and trash a company at the very least read the pertinent documentation. You called dahua liars, when in fact, IPVM was lying or if given the benefit of the doubt, mistaken.

210. With respect to “public safety,” we find that this includes services provided by State or local government entities, or services by non-governmental agencies authorized by a governmental entity if their primary mission is the provision of services, that protect the safety of life, health, and property, including but not limited to police, fire, and emergency medical services.523 For purposes of implementing the Secure Networks Act and the Secure Equipment Act, we interpret public safety broadly to encompass the services provided by Federal law enforcement and professional security services, where the primary mission is the provision of services, that protect the safety of life, health, and property. We believe that this best fulfills Congress’ intent with respect to the scope of public safety as that term is used in section 889(f)(3) in connection with “covered” Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua equipment and the other terms in that section

FCC Amends Equipment Authorization Program

The Commission amends our rules related to equipment authorization to further secure our communications networks and supply chains from equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to national security of the United States

www.fcc.gov

 

[john-ipvm]

Guess you failed to read the Report and Order before publishing your nonsense

The Dahua post was published days before the FCC order was released. The Dahua post point remains. Dahua knows it intends its products for public safety and the products did not fundamentally change, they just deleted the references from the website to hide that.

Since you are alluding to the full 183-page document you must know that Dahua has been banned from new authorizations entirely. Indeed, you are well aware that your edited title is factually untrue - "FCC Bans U.S. Sales of Dahua and others - for law enforement use only - not private business or personal use." (and has a spelling mistake)

The only option Dahua now has is to get the full Commission to approve a detailed plan convincing FCC that Dahua can ensure it will stop the sales and marketing of its products for prohibited purposes to have a chance of being able to receive any new authorizations.