18 ms·
There is a law in China that says citizens and corporations are required to cooperate with its intelligence services Of course US corporations are just as beho
by endorphone 8y ago
There is a law in China that says citizens and corporations are required to cooperate with its intelligence services
Of course US corporations are just as beholden to government directive. e.g. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/04/how-american-companies-enable-nsa-surveillance/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/04/how-american-companies-...
- friedman23 8y agoThe alternative to Huawei for telecommunications equipment isn't a US corporation so framing it as the US vs China serves no purpose. I'll be happy if neither the US nor China made telecommunications equipment for countries. I don't understand why people feel the need to defend Chinese mega corporations. edit: I managed to offend a few people with this comment
- jake_the_third 8y agoI don't think it's defending chinese companies as much as it is highlighting that companies on both sides are susceptible to more or less the same type of government control. I personally think it's something worth mentioning when it's the most common reason cited for avoiding a chinese company.
- friedman23 8y ago> as it is highlighting that companies on both sides are susceptible to more or less the same type of government control. Except they aren't. Just the fact that you mention "both" sides shows your ignorance. The alternative to Huawei, as I have mentioned, is not an American corporation it is a European one (Ericsson or Nokia). This isn't a case of the American government forcing allies to abandon Huawei so an American corporation can profit.
- kungtotte 8y agoWhat about the rest of the world? Samsung and LG are both Korea-based, and Sony is from Japan.
- friedman23 8y agoI wasn't aware that they had 5g offerings but if they do they are obviously choices too. I'm not aware of any American 5g offerings.
- vetinari 8y agoNokia merged with Alcatel-Lucent, so it is not purely European anymore. Ericsson works on 5G with Fujitsu, so that looks more like US-free option.
- pilsetnieks 8y agoIt is my understanding that Nokia _acquired_ Alcatel-Lucent, and the only significant part of that conglomerate still in the US is Bell Labs (which are also now owned by Nokia.)
- iagovar 8y agoDo euro vendors provide hardware for the whole chain? I mean, from dslams, to routers, olts, cpe etc If wanted to set up an ISP could I without buying non-eu vendors?
- TwoBit 8y agoYou think the types of governmental control are the same between US and China? It seems clear that at least a few US corporations successfully resist meddling attempts.
- manicdee 8y agoYet we have photos and video of US “customs” intercepting Cisco shipments and loading backdoored firmware or tampering with the hardware. They boast about it. If it came to a war, the US and China are both going to shut down whatever communications channels their “enemies” are using. This is just one of the reasons that US DoD is so interested in SpaceX’s StarLink.
- tivert 8y ago> Yet we have photos and video of US “customs” intercepting Cisco shipments and loading backdoored firmware or tampering with the hardware. They boast about it. Having your shipments intercepted en-route by spies is very different than directly cooperating with those spies. None of those interceptions required cooperation by Cisco. Cisco complained to the government about the interceptions: https://www.recode.net/2014/5/18/11627004/in-letter-to-obama-cisco-ceo-complains-about-nsa-allegations https://www.recode.net/2014/5/18/11627004/in-letter-to-obama... Apple has also famously resisted government demands to develop a backdoor for its hardware. IIRC, all indications were that the government's demands would have been rejected by the court system had the case progressed far enough to provide a definitive answer.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoWhat we think happened: Cisco complained to the government ... Apple resisted government demands. What really happened: Intelligence Community: "So, we'll demand you backdoor devices, we'll intercept a few and modify them, and then you'll public complain and resist, and then after the media frenzy has died down..." /tinfoilhat
- geofft 8y agoCisco complained! That does so much... a customer getting a backdoored router doesn't really care if Huawei consented to adding the backdoor or Cisco didn't, they still get a backdoor. Huawei says, in public, that it's important to their reputation to be known to ship un-backdoored devices. Cisco says the exact same thing.
- scoot_718 8y agoChinese government control is much worse, are you high?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dang 8y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
- PavlovsCat 8y agoEvery time China is critized, the US is brought up. Maybe just to "highlight" something, but here it takes up several pages before any actual discussion of the story. Every time the US is critized, China isn't brought up. Wouldn't that make great sense, too? "Snowden says the NSA X" "yeah, but China does Y!". I don't think I've seen that once, whereas "but the US!" is a constant companion.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoThat's just this forum being primarily USA based/focused people.
- PavlovsCat 8y agoI agree that responsibility matters. Like, I have opinions on things going on in the US or China, but I'm much more responsible for things my government does, or what companies I support with money do. And in this case, it's even fair to point out the hipocrisy of the US asking allies to drop Huawei for reasons smart allies should also drop US produced things for. But then again, we know all that, and we actually do have threads about that stuff as well, so why not also have one about Huawei.
- gdy 8y agoIt's the US who pretend to be exceptional and to have moral high ground.
- eksemplar 8y agoI’m not sure why this was downvoted so heavily, because it has a point. The US is obviously not a trustworthy partner, but neither is China. At least American companies still reside in a somewhat democracy where they’ll actually protect our rights, even if we’re European. Sure it’s not for noble goals, they want to make money, and they won’t if they don’t care for data security. Google cloud is the prime example of this. The European public sector is spending billions on Clouds these years, and none of that is going to Google, because Google doesn’t protect your data the same way Microsoft does. I can physically visit the Azure instances that house our data, and nothing but our data, and it never leaves the union. Maybe the NSA still listens in, maybe China does too, but it’s not legal for them to do so the way it would be in the Alibaba or google clouds.
- Johnny555 8y agoGoogle cloud is the prime example of this. The European public sector is spending billions on Clouds these years, and none of that is going to Google, because Google doesn’t protect your data the same way Microsoft does. What does Microsoft do that other cloud providers like Google do not do? If I store my data in GCP region europe-west3 (Frankfurt) are you saying that Google will leak that data to some third party or send it out of that region? Maybe the NSA still listens in, maybe China does too, but it’s not legal for them to do so the way it would be in the Alibaba or google clouds. What is the legal difference between the NSA intercepting European GCP traffic and European Azure traffic?
- jacobush 8y ago"Google will leak that data to some third party or send it out of that region?" Yes. Every municipality around here goes with Microsoft or their own on premises installations for this very reason.
- saiya-jin 8y agoStrange schizophrenia from Microsoft - having actually presumably secure cloud instances on site, and actively making their other products less secure by monitoring users of their core OS and Office suites even if users specifically want to prevent that, even the top enterprise editions. I understand those are different parts of the company managed by different persons, but at the end, top of the pyramid is the same. Corporations are like people - they don't change. You can put on different mask every day, but underneath its the same flesh and bones (or decision makers in this case). I would be wary of the notion that Microsoft is somehow a good moral company in one specific area, when it is amoral in others.
- endorphone 8y agoBut I'm not "defending" anyone. I am pointing out that it's a bit rich for the US to be the ones ringing the alarm bell.
- linkregister 8y agoAlcatel is French-owned, you can buy their equipment. P.S. using non-U.S. and non-Chinese equipment won't protect you from a hack. Both countries are known to have successful vulnerability exploitation programs.
- vadym909 8y agoThere might be a few American companies that may do it but not out of fear, and I suspect many companies and individuals would resist, oppose, leak, resign if this was the case in America as you often hear in the news. There are courts, public opinion, journalists that you could involve in the US. Ever hear of pushback in China from anyone?
- jmnicolas 8y agoHave you ever heard of Snowden ?
- balibebas 8y agoIf it were up to that guy we'd all lock our phones in refrigerators after dark.
- apatters 8y agoDoesn't the Snowden phenomenon kind of make his point? His leaks spawned a shitstorm of US/Western media coverage and even court cases against the government. What happens inside China if a Chinese national flees the country and blows the whistle? Basically no challenge to the government, media blackout, maybe his friends get sent to re-education camps, etc.
- SSLy 8y agoYes, but neither Ericsson nor Nokia are US companies.
- apexalpha 8y agoVery good then, if we do this as Europe I say we do the same for any American company. There is _video_ proof of the NSA doing exactly the same thing they now accuse the Chinese of.
- cyborgx7 8y agoBut they are our "allies". Surely they wouldn't do anything to us. Unlike the evil chinese.
- coldtea 8y agoThere's also the fact that historically those evil Chinese were those that had been attack (from colonial UK and co, then from the axis powers, etc.) and not the ones doing the attack -- whereas at least one European country (Germany) had been under US attack, and many had internal meddling (Gladio, dictatorships, corporate espionage, diplomatic meddling, etc to this day).
- gdy 8y ago"Germany had been under US attack" Is that how it is called now?
- Veen 8y agoTell that to the Tibetans, Mongolians, and the dozens of other nations that have been subject to Chinese imperial domination over the centuries.
- cf141q5325 8y agoOr to Latin America
- 8y ago
- fsloth 8y agoSure. And I don't think anyone is claiming any different. And due to the five eyes agreement between US and commonwealth countries there is a lot of espionage data changing hands there. European telephone networks were compromised a long time ago to my understanding But from a geopolitical ourside vs. their side standpoint Huawei from US point of view is on the wrong side of the fence. A certain level of spying is always expected. Did Huawei actually breach some unacceptable level, or is this just a manifestation of the US vs. China tradewar, I don't know.
- tootie 8y agoTypically this is done via FISA warrants aside from that period during the Bush admin. China doesn't guarantee due process and get request information on anyone for any reason including dissidence. Every government will spy on their citizens to some degree, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
- cf141q5325 8y agoAnd the citizens of your governments "allies"?
- moreorless 8y ago> Every government will spy on their citizens to some degree, but that doesn't make them equivalent. I only got my girlfriend a little pregnant; not like Joe over there, who got his girlfriend fully pregnant.
- objektif 8y agoNot a great analogy there are governments and there are governments who gove you social credit scores and stuff.
- matthewowen 8y agoYes, some things are binary and some things are not. Your example is binary. The situation we're talking about is not.
- hellbanner 8y agoFrog in the boiling pot
- hannasanarion 8y agoSlippery slope See I can name meaningless aphorisms too.
- jolmg 8y ago
- empath75 8y agoI think this should be fairly obvious, but if you’re extremely concerned about American intelligence and law enforcement having access to your data, you should avoid American services and products. If you’re concerned about Chinese intelligence and law enforcement, you should avoid Chinese products, etc. Interestingly, I think this would often mean that Americans who are engaged in illicit activity would probably be better off using Chinese services and vice versa.
- derefr 8y agoCorporations are, but their employees and officers aren’t. For example, the US government could compel Lavabit (the company) to hand over signing keys; but they couldn’t compel the employees/founders of Lavabit to keep working there, nor charge them with anything for quitting. It’s not illegal to choose to dissolve a company in protest of a US government directive.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Corporations are, but their employees and officers aren’t Employees and officers of US corporations are not immune to government orders. Particularly, NSLs directed at information held by corporations can be, and often are, addresses to particular officers as orders to that officer, who is often ordered to deliver the requested material in person to the relevant government office. > For example, the US government could compel Lavabit (the company) to hand over signing keys; but they couldn’t compel the employees/founders of Lavabit to keep working there, No, but that doesn't protect them individually from government orders to provide information, the authority for which applies to any person, not just corporations (corporations are covered because they are juridical persons.) > It’s not illegal to choose to dissolve a company in protest of a US government directive. It actually is illegal to do anything (other than filing a sealed challenge in court to the non-disclosure provision) in protest of an NSL with a non-disclosure provision, since such a protest itself violates the non-disclosure provision. And, yes, even aside from that, it would probsbly also be illegal to voluntarily surrender access to info you have been ordered to provide to the government rather than providing that info as ordered.