Statement ********
*****'* ************ ***** ******* ********* with *** ***-********** *********:

**** ****** ********** *** quite ****, ****** *** only ***** ******** ******* statement *** ** ******** 2016, ********* ********** ****** criticism ** *********:

*** **** ** *** 2018 **** ********* ** primarily *** **** **** cybersecurity *********.
Terrible ** *************
**** *** ******* **** recently (*****'* ******** *************) ** ** **** not ****** *********. ******* to ***, *** *********** of ********* ****** *** lack ** ************* ************ has **** *************** ****. And ** *****'* *****, that ** ******* *** because ** ******* ********** ownership *** ******* ***** China ** ****** ******* (e.g.,***** ******** **** ** Out). *****'* *****-****** **** this ****** ** * key ****** ** *** Chinese ********** *** ******* out ******* *********** ****** of *****, ******** ***** to **** **** **** disorganized ******** *********.
Not ********** *****
*************** *** *** ***** and ********* ****** ******* from *** ******* **********, ***** **, ** all ********, * ******* company (** ** ********** private ** ~$* ******* revenue ******* *** ** in *****). ***** *** a ***** ********** ** its ***** **** ** entities ******* ** *** Chinese ********** *** ******* akin ** *** ******* that ********* ***.
'Connected' ** *** ******* **********?
*** ******** **** ******** **** includes ********* '*********' ** the ******* **********:

*** *** ** ********** is ******** '*********' ** unclear *** *** **** itself, ** ***** *******, is *****. *******,***** *** *** ****** $1 ******* *** ** government ********* *** ******* oppressing ********** ** ************ *** **** * years, ***** *** **** and *********** ** ***** projects, ***** ** ******* some '**********' ******* *** Chinese ********** *** *****. Whether **** ********** ** sufficient ** ********** ******* is * *** ********.
Relatively ****** *** *****
******** ** ********* ** the ***, ***** *** much **** ******. ** addition ** *** ***** owned ** *** ******* government, **** *** **** smaller, ** **** **** less ** ****/********. ********, Dahua *** *** * clear ******* ** ****** (ex-FLIR ***** ****) ***** Hikvision *** **** ******* in * ***** ******* national. *** ************** *** ******* ******* out ** **** ***, ********* *******, ***** is ******* **.
** **** ** *****, though, *** **** ** these *********.
Comments (25)
Undisclosed #1
Dahua Exec #1: Sir, rumor has it that Huawei and Hikvision are being added to a U.S. government list giving them “special treatment” in the procurement process, probably due to their ownership structure.
Dahua CEO: I am sick and tired of being upstaged by Hik and their government connections. Listen, you get us on that list, whatever it takes! And I better not see Longse on that list either!
Create New Topic
David Delepine
IPVMU Certified | 08/08/18 06:23pm
I am glad that Dahua is distinguishing themselves from Hikvision and this is definitely the kind of public statement they need to make more often in the wake of the their ban from government use. For too long the term Hikhua was all too true, so I hope this is a trend that they continue with.
Also we all know from Bashis and other sources that Dahua has had a terrible cybersecurity history. I will say that in my most recent experience they take any sign of hacking (and glitchy firmware) very seriously. This level of support I hope becomes the norm for them and they continue building on their internal systems, people, and processes to achieve the level of maturity you would expect out of a multi-billion dollar corporation.
I mean us small time integrators and even regional distributors can maybe get by with haphazard systems and a “ma & pa” vibe... but the world’s second largest cctv manufacturer???
I think if they can become more transparent and stay responsive to the issues that affect their dealers, and ultimately their end users, then they can have a successful future in the SMB and middle/upper middle class home markets. To these clients a few thousand in equipment costs can be a make or break difference, but they are willing to to pay a bit above the bottom of the barrel.
Having spent the eary years of our company doing a lot of installs for clients who bought their own Qsee and Lorex kits (we got “wise” early on and started refusing the swann and other kits because their failure rate was just too high... as if the others were that much better?) we know how much better the pro lines work than the el cheapo specials. I am sure we could insert some other low cost providers in there like uniview, milesight, etc. but none of them have the product selection and personal support of Dahua USA.
Even the big OEMs like IC and Saavy (or whatever they are now lol) cannot have boots on the ground for job walks, sales engineers for designs (though we IPVM members who use the calculator can get by without that ;) ), and sheer volume of leads, materials, and trainings nationwide that Dahua is capable of.
It will be an uphill battle for sure, and I think every dealer in the wake of the ban needs a non-Chinese alternative for clients who have serious cybersecurity concerns or are just generally concerned about Chinese made devices.
Create New Topic
Sean Nelson
08/08/18 06:56pm
This just goes to show you how much thought (or lack therof) was put into the Government Ban. Typical government boneheadedness implementing/imposing rules without thinking things through.
So we arent allowed to install Dahua or Hikvision in govt installs but we are allowed to install XM equipment or the other Chinese vendors who had vulnerabilities found? Genius!!!
I think the govt official who thought up this mindless bill read too many IPVM headlines but wasnt a full member. Thus they only read the countless free Hikua-Damning articles articles OR the ones that werent free in which you could only read the first paragraph and not get the whole story. By the way, this is a compliment to IPVM for their lobbying powers so please dont take it the wrong way.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed #2
Even if Dahua is allowed on a technicality, I would be very hesitant to recommend or use them at these sites.
The spirit of the bill seems to be to keep Chinese products out of sensitive areas. It could easily be expanded or clarified to mention Dahua, XM, Longse, etc. by name. If you put Dahua in today, and then things get amended to be more specific about not using ANY Chinese products, you risk winding up in a scenario where you have to rip and replace the Dahua equipment with something else. While I suppose that could technically be a win for the integrator, the customer would probably be less than ecstatic.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #6
The govt pays more per hour for 1tech just to install a Hik camera. Why would they want to buy the cheapest product out there? $420 to install a $79 dollar camera....
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #7
I'm already hearing rumors that LTS is positioning itself to "take over" Hik. LTS is not state owned like Hik, a far as I know. If the branding changes and they prove they are no longer a Hik OEM, this could side step the ban.
NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: LTS Reaction To Hikvision US Gov Ban?
Create New Topic
Robert Shih
08/09/18 03:46pm
Well, the reality of it is that decisions on anything this specialized should be made with the input of industry professionals in the matter. If anything, this is where we need put our heads together as an industry and find a way to become a part of the system that is currently blind to the actual situation.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #8
Moreover, Dahua now has a clear veteran US leader (ex-FLIR Wayne Hurd)
Dahua has the history of hiring good people but not being able to keep them. Again, the key is not hiring the right person. I seriously doubt Mr. Hurd is in the position where he can do his job the right way.
Create New Topic