How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
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.
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 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
US domestic propaganda is built on hypocrisy (we need to stop X from doing Y... which we or our allies are doing already). It might not be explicitly stated right here, on this matter (contrary to The Register), but that’s the backdrop.
Calling it hypocrisy is at the very least good propaganda to try to wake Americans up from their stupor.
Admittedly though with Trump there’s no hypocritical propaganda any more. He just says he “wants the oil” or whatever.
Power revels in hypocrisy: Rules protect the in-group but do not bind them, and bind the out-group but do not protect them.
It's not just logical, it's affective: There is a real pleasure in domination, and a real fear in any loss of control. It feels good to be strong, to be in control, to be protected but not bound. Domination is hegemony, hegemony is safety.
These billionaires genuinely feel themselves to be oppressed if their power is threatened in any way. [1]
Maybe the unstated argument is: if you benefit from open networks when it suits you, you lose the moral standing to close them off later. Not hypocrisy exactly — more like forfeiting a claim.
The video is interesting but conflating product quality failures with intentional backdoors seems like a stretch. Bad engineering and malicious design aren't the same thing. One is embarrassing, the other is a deliberate policy choice.
You're linking to a 36 minute video titled "Black Hat USA 2025 | China's 5+ Year Campaign to Penetrate Perimeter Network Defenses." There's nothing in the description about "USA company bought an Indian OS to turn into it's SOHO router/firewall product."
Either you linked the wrong thing or you need a better source.
The irony is pretty well-documented at this point. NSA's JETPLOW and HALLUXWATER implants targeted Cisco specifically. Whether the current ban is defensive or just regulatory capture dressed up as security policy, I genuinely can't say.
