If you're using that non-standard definition of "compromised" then anything substantially made in the US, Australia, South Korea, Israel or Kazakhstan (non-exhaustive list) should be considered compromised.
I'd love it if people actually stuck to some principles and stopped buying from any of these countries. But using that legal situation as a reason to single out China/Huawei is bullshit.
"compromised" might be a word used by the tech community to refer specifically to technical compromises, but the word means something much more broad outside of tech forums.
> then anything substantially made in the US, Australia, South Korea, Israel or Kazakhstan (non-exhaustive list) should be considered compromised.
Not really, because many of those countries you listed have mutual treaties of cooperation and are not hostile to each other.
> Not really, because many of those countries you listed have mutual treaties of cooperation and are not hostile to each other.
Doesn't seem to stop them from taking immensely hostile actions, e.g. the US spying on Merkel's emails, or helping killers and rapists who work for them evade arrest in "allied" countries. Governments are large and complex and have many competing interests. Why would/should one trust any of the ones I mentioned more than the government of China?
Agreed, so how do you get from that to mistrusting only China? Everyone, including China/Huawei, has an interest in growing the pie. Some entities have an interest in zero-sum competition with me and mine. That's more likely to be someone closer - Chinese companies aren't competing directly with my business, but American, Australian and Israeli ones are.
I'd love it if people actually stuck to some principles and stopped buying from any of these countries. But using that legal situation as a reason to single out China/Huawei is bullshit.