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

[fenderman]

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.

Great, so you are a stubborn liar. Perhaps dahua relied on a draft release of the definition of public safety - they were clear in their response to you that they understood the difference.
Your trash blog that charges 200 dollars minimum for yearly membership LIED, and you are refusing to take down that LIE. Best you can do is point to a spelling error. FUCK OFF you liar. The spelling error remains.
Dahua has NOT been banned from new authorizations - another lie. They simply need direct approval. My edited title is 100 percent correct.
IPVM has been directly involved in getting dahua/hik banned, as cited in the report. You should do a better job with your research and stop publishing lies.
You lied about the definition of public safety and when confronted with irrefutable proof by way off the FCC's own interpretation you deflect.


Here is a screenshot of your story where you state that dahua markets to owners of public places and therefore public safety is involved. Why have you not removed this lie when you know the truth? The entire premise of your story is based on your failure to read the report and not defining "public safety" accurately.

 

[john-ipvm]

Dahua has NOT been banned from new authorizations - another lie. They simply need direct approval

Yes they are, it's explained clearly at the beginning of the 183 page document, for your reference:

Prohibits authorization of telecommunications equipment and video
surveillance equipment produced by Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua (and their
respective subsidiaries or affiliates) until such time as the Commission
approves these entities’ plans and measures that will to ensure the such
equipment will not be marketed and sold to for “the purpose of public safety,
security of government facilities, physical surveillance of critical
infrastructure, or other national security purpose”;

I've shared my source. Please share your source for the allegation of "simply need direct approval".

 

[fenderman]

Yes they are, it's explained clearly at the beginning of the 183 page document, for your reference:



I've shared my source. Please share your source for the allegation of "simply need direct approval".

Exactly, any FUTURE authorizations will need dahua to ensure " such equipment will not be marketed and sold to for “the purpose of public safety,
security of government facilities, physical surveillance of critical
infrastructure, or other national security purpose”;

That is not a ban. There was an approval process before this as well. Was that a ban? You continue to mislead because you refuse to admit you were wrong. They need direct approval from the FCC. What part of that dont you understand. Its literally in the quote you posted.
Let try this.
Will you admit, that your definition and understanding of the term "public safety" as it related to the FCC NOV 25th order was wrong, until I provided same to you? Yes or no?
Not only did you disagree with me, you used your "expertise" in the industry to dismiss my correct interpretation. It proves you didnt even read the FCC document yet pretend to be an expert. I am glad I exposed you has being full of shit.

 

[fenderman]

So everyone can see, John's false statement made because he did not read the FCC docs.

 

[fenderman]

Yes they are, it's explained clearly at the beginning of the 183 page document, for your reference:



I've shared my source. Please share your source for the allegation of "simply need direct approval".

If you keep repeating your LIE, it wont become true. My source is the words you posted direct from the FCC. You do understand the various methods of approval available to companies right? Hik and dahua can no longer self certify by way of a declaration of conformity. Once they prove the product is not marketed or sold to prohibited entities they cannot under this rule refuse authorization.

 

[john-ipvm]

I admit the FCC's definition of "public safety" is different from the concept that I have for "public safety". I had not read that section before commenting.

any FUTURE authorizations will need dahua to ensure " such equipment will not be marketed and sold to for “the purpose of public safety,

No, it's not that Dahua has to ensure this. It's that Dahua has to get the full Commission to approve a plan before it can get anything approved. The ban on authorization is in place. If Dahua can get the FCC to approve its plan, then Dahua can get authorizations approved. "Simply need direct approval" is highly misleading at best.

FCC Bans U.S. Sales of Dahua and others - for law enforement use only - not private business or personal use

."

Btw, your title is also wrong and unfair to Dahua. The FCC has not banned US sales of Dahua at all. The FCC has banned new equipment authorizations unless and until the FCC approves a Dahua plan to stop its products being sold for covered uses.

 

[fenderman]

I admit the FCC's definition of "public safety" is different from the concept that I have for "public safety". I had not read that section before commenting.



No, it's not that Dahua has to ensure this. It's that Dahua has to get the full Commission to approve a plan before it can get anything approved. The ban on authorization is in place. If Dahua can get the FCC to approve its plan, then Dahua can get authorizations approved. "Simply need direct approval" is highly misleading at best.

FCC Bans U.S. Sales of Dahua and others - for law enforement use only - not private business or personal use.

Btw, your title is also wrong and unfair to Dahua. The FCC has not banned US sales of Dahua at all. The FCC has banned new equipment authorizations unless and until the FCC approves a Dahua plan to stop its products being sold for covered uses.

So you admit that the premise of your entire article was wrong. Great.
How is "direct approval" misleading. Its exactly that what you claim dahua needs. I know you love using the word ban, but that is not what this is.
I edited the users title while making the least amount of changes to the post. You are correct, there is no ban - yet you love calling it a ban. Glad you admit this. The title stands. Just like your misleading blog post.

 

[john-ipvm]

So you admit that the premise of your entire article was wrong

The premise of the article is correct. Dahua intends its products to be used in public safety and removed the language because they want to avoid US regulation, not because the products are not actually intended for public safety.

there is no ban

There is a ban, i.e., the FCC is prohibiting authorizations. The ban stays in place if and unless the FCC approves a plan. I'll quote it again for you and others, marking up to the key clauses:

Prohibits [BANS] authorization of telecommunications equipment and video
surveillance equipment produced by Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua (and their
respective subsidiaries or affiliates) [IF / UNLESS] until such time as the Commission
approves these entities’ plans and measures that will to ensure the such
equipment will not be marketed and sold to for “the purpose of public safety,
security of government facilities, physical surveillance of critical
infrastructure, or other national security purpose”;

 

[fenderman]

The premise of the article is correct. Dahua intends its products to be used in public safety and removed the language because they want to avoid US regulation, not because the products are not actually intended for public safety.



There is a ban, i.e., the FCC is prohibiting authorizations. The ban stays in place if and unless the FCC approves a plan. I'll quote it again for you and others, marking up to the key clauses:

Wrong, your article does not cite a SINGLE source where dahua marketed to police, fire, ambulance or government entitles. You cited other sources in error as in the screenshot I posted above because you failed to do proper research and therefore did not understand the definition of public safety despite your useless "two decades" of experience. I understand you love to use the term ban, but there is no ban - its simply a refusal to authorize. Ban implies an import or use ban. That is why you like using this misleading term. They removed the language because folks like you failed to do the research and alleged they were marketing to public safety when they were not.

 

[fenderman]

By your own admission and your "expertise" public safety includes businesses and the like. So why do you now claim dahua meant law enforcement in their marketing when you yourself had a much broader interpretation of "public safety" broadly and you were adamant that it applied to the fcc rule, until I proved you wrong. Trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[john-ipvm]

ts simply a refusal to authorize. Ban implies an import or use ban. That is why you like using this misleading term.

The FCC repeatedly refers to it as "prohibiting" or "prohibition" so you would object to "FCC Bans New Equipment Authorizations" but presumably you would be ok with "FCC Prohibits New Equipment Authorizations", yes?

 

[fenderman]

The FCC repeatedly refers to it as "prohibiting" or "prohibition" so you would object to "FCC Bans New Equipment Authorizations" but presumably you would be ok with "FCC Prohibits New Equipment Authorizations", yes?

Certainly. My issue is with your deliberate misrepresentation. Sorry your efforts to screw the business and home end users fell flat. Your members will have to work harder to squeeze money out of their remaining clientele.

 

[fenderman]

Your refusal to clarify "public safety" in that article or in general to your members now that I have shown you that you were wrong and you have admitted same, is troubling.

 

[john-ipvm]

So why do you now claim dahua meant law enforcement in their marketing

Sure, here are some examples of Dahua USA marketing for law enforcement use:






Dahua is now going out to delete these references but again it's very clear and unsurprising that Dahua, like any other large commercial video surveillance provider would intend their products to be used by law enforcement, government entities, etc.

 

[john-ipvm]

And here is an example of Dahua marketing for "city buses", "school buses" and "police cars"



Again Dahua is deleting this but it is very clear and unsurprising that Dahua, like any other large commercial video surveillance provider, would intend their products to be used by city buses, school buses, police cars, etc.

 

[Holbs]

I do not get the big deal of what Dahua has done. I am sure they have catered to 600 billion organizations and industries in the past....just about anyplace that wants decent cameras. I would wager Axxis, Sony and Hik and all the other's have done so as well.

 

[fenderman]

And here is an example of Dahua marketing for "city buses", "school buses" and "police cars"

View attachment 146683

Again Dahua is deleting this but it is very clear and unsurprising that Dahua, like any other large commercial video surveillance provider, would intend their products to be used by city buses, school buses, police cars, etc.

First, those links were NOT in your blog post. Nice try implying that they were. Your blog post was void of those links because you focused on your misinterpretation of "public safety". That is why IPVM specifically asked dahua about "public safety" and their response to you was 100 PERCENT facutally correct or the truth.
Dahua is not saying that they dont or didnt make ANY products that could be used by or that were marketed to law enforcement. A car tire can be used by LE as well as a private citizen. They are saying they WILL not market any products to LE or public safety as defined by the FCC - and therefore they are cleaning up their references to public safety on their pages as to not cause any confusion. Again, the FCC is not refusing to authorize products based on their ability to be used by LE but rather being marketed and sold to LE. In fact, dahua is doing EXACTLY why the FCC is demanding - yet you are calling that a lie.

 

[fenderman]

View attachment 146684

I do not get the big deal of what Dahua has done. I am sure they have catered to 600 billion organizations and industries in the past....just about anyplace that wants decent cameras. I would wager Axxis, Sony and Hik and all the other's have done so as well.

Its not a big deal, in fact they are doing exactly what the FCC has demanded of them. John just has a pole up his ass because IPVM has been advocating this ban as noted in the FCC report. You see, its not about security or safety. Its about limiting low cost alternatives to the general public.
"
Several commenters assert that the Commission should engage in a cost-benefit analysis as it considers adoption of rules concerning the prohibition of authorization of “covered” equipment.539 Several also discussed the potential for unintended consequences to the supply chain.540 For instance, Hikvision claims that a prohibition on video surveillance equipment would be disruptive to American businesses541 and burdensome to consumers.542 Dahua USA argues that the proposed rules are not costeffective, would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy, and would add extra administrative burdens on the Commission and market participants.543 IVPM, however, says that there are at least 40 video surveillance equipment alternatives to video surveillance equipment on the Covered List.544"

What is not said or discussed is the cost premium of those other 40 brands as well as their closed sales channels which will limit end user purchases. It is important to understand that this is the sole purpose of organizations like IPVM's demand for the ban. If they cared about security they would similarly opine on other chinese brands, or hell publish a demand that Biden actually secure the border. Its all about money. We know that hiks and dahuas or any other brand can be installed securely. In fact if this was not the case, removal of these cameras would be demanded or at least currently authorized devices would be banned - they are not.

 

[john-ipvm]

First, those links were NOT in your blog post. Nice try implying that they were

I was not implying that. I was responding to your specific questions. I am adding them in now, for completeness.

therefore they are cleaning up their references to public safety on their pages as to not cause any confusion

The "confusion" has already been done by many years of their marketing (online) and via its sales team (in person) to these applications (including more than 4 years since the NDAA was passed with that language). Removing these references from their website will not ensure that these products will not be sold for covered applications nor will it prove that Dahua did not "intend" to do this, just that Dahua is now trying to comply with further restrictions on them.

Wrapping this up, we now agree that:
1) a prohibition is in place against new Dahua products being authorized by the FCC
(2) Dahua will have to convince FCC Commissioners of their plan to stop marketing and sales for prohibited purposes and
(3) if FCC Commissioners don't approve their plan, the prohibition will last indefinitely on everything including products you believe are home or business ones

 

[fenderman]

I was not implying that. I was responding to your specific questions. I am adding them in now, for completeness.


The "confusion" has already been done by many years of their marketing (online) and via its sales team (in person) to these applications (including more than 4 years since the NDAA was passed with that language). Removing these references from their website will not ensure that these products will not be sold for covered applications nor will it prove that Dahua did not "intend" to do this, just that Dahua is now trying to comply with further restrictions on them.

Wrapping this up, we now agree that:
1) a prohibition is in place against new Dahua products being authorized by the FCC
(2) Dahua will have to convince FCC Commissioners of their plan to stop marketing and sales for prohibited purposes and
(3) if FCC Commissioners don't approve their plan, the prohibition will last indefinitely on everything including products you believe are home or business ones

Again - you repeat your misinformation and lies that you cant get it straight. The issue is not what dahua has dont in the past! That is irrelevant, they were not breaking any FCC regs. Now that the new rule is implemented they are complying and changing their marketing.
1) FALSE- you keep lying about this. They simply need fcc approval and cannot self certify. Its about time your read the report, eh?
2) The process will actually be VERY easy - see below (time for you to actually read the report and order). That is EXACTLY why the are clarifying their marketing and removing any ambiguous terms, you dimwit! The commission cannot arbitrarily deny approval.
3) False, Dahua can seek legal remedy but it will never come to this as the process is VERY easy.
This is from the report and explains how EASY and "boilerplate" the process will be. This is in their cost benefit analysis section. Stop pretending that dahua will have to grovel before a commission for each new camera. Every post of your further exposes that fact that you didn't read the report.

222. Certification rules and procedures. We find that our revision of section 2.911 requiring that applicants for equipment authorizations in the certification process attest that their equipment is not “covered” equipment on the Covered List while also indicating whether they are any entity identified on the Covered List, coupled with procedures for revocation for false statements or representations made in the application for certification, is a reasonable and cost-effective method to ensure that “covered” equipment is not certified. Because the attestation requirement is general, rather than a specific provision that directly relates to the equipment identified on the current Covered List, we believe that most applicants will rely on boilerplate language, that once incorporated for a single certification, will be of negligible cost for an applicant to include in future applications. We expect that our procedures for revocation for false statements or misrepresentations will deter most applicants from false attestations because of the cost that revocation would impose on an applicant. Moreover, we note that the attestation requirement that we are adopting is more cost effective than an alternative approach, such as a verification process whereby a third party would confirm that equipment being certified is not on the Covered List; that type of third party verification would be substantially more costly to applicants and would likely slow innovation. We believe that the costs we are imposing are reasonable in light of the national security goals.