Google denies the Chinese IT giant Huawei access to Google’s proprietary components of the Android mobile operating system which threatens IT security. This highlights the importance Free Software has for technology users, public bodies, and businesses. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) presents three essential lessons from this case.
Read the complete article.
Is it already clear that the US government had an influence
on Google’s decision?
Yes, it is a reaction to the state of emergency Trump declared. It is technically still possible to trade with Huawei, but every US company needs a special clearance for that granted by the US government. To me personally, this looks like it is not just about security, but also about the trade conflict with China (Huawei is the second largest smartphone manufacturer in the world) which makes it even less likely that the US government will give anyone that kind of permission.
I also find it odd that the bot appeared here. As far as I can tell, no one called it here. 
Sorry, we didn’t know the bot also auto-replies in public topics. This should be disabled now – otherwise, please just ignore it 
OK, thanks.
And yes, I agree that this is just an extensoion of the trade war.
It’s not the first time US “national security” is invoked in this context.
That tradition even reaches to pre-Trump times (remember why the content of the TTIP negotiations had to be secret?)
Ah, it was just clippy ;-)
I was genuinely confused…
thanks
IMHO, the Huawei case is much more blunt than the TTIP negotiations. The latter was rather typical back-room behaviour while the former is a more or less obvious trade war and a hard try to “protect” the local economy by selective economical isolation.
Underlying is an (mis-)understanding of globalisation that is more radical in respect to confrontation than everything I can remember of in the history of US administrations after WW2.
[…]
IMHO, the Huawei case is much more blunt than the TTIP negotiations.
That’s for sure… as nearly anything Trump.
The latter was rather typical back-room behaviour while the former is a more or less obvious trade war and a hard try to “protect” the local economy by selective economical isolation.
I was referring to the US Administration which, if I remember correctly, put forward national security to counter (AFAIR) FOIA requests targeted at the content of those negotiations.
Underlying is an (mis-)understanding of globalisation that is more radical in respect to confrontation than everything I can remember of in the history of US administrations after WW2.
The tone has become abominable, yes, but let’s not forget that the ideological and financial background (e.g. the Koch family, etc.) has been there all the time…