5 ms·

Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?

36 points by symisc_devel 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I'm not sure "national security" and "without proof, is it a threat" go together. In national security, you make your best estimate, with evidence, but often with less than proof.
jammygit 8y ago
One could imagine various countries contributing to large open hardware projects and those governments preferring to use specific components that were manufactured 'locally.' That way you theoretically know what a part does, how it works, and you know it was at least not manufactured somewhere that worries you. I wonder if the cost of local manufacture would just be too high for the economics to work (edit: it would certainly help create jobs anyway)
- twblalock 8y ago
  Local manufacture could still be compromised by employees working for foreign governments, compromised suppliers, parts or finished goods being intercepted or modified during shipment, etc.
- azernik 8y ago
  That's a cost-benefit equation that every country needs to make for itself, but it's one that you see frequently in defense contracting - a country will be perfectly happy to buy e.g. a tank design (and several hundred examples) from a foreign country, as long as it includes the know-how to manufacture them locally. For example, in the rather interesting Israeli case, purchase of the F-35 was conditioned on Israel being able to replace the avionics, which are probably the part most vulnerable to unnoticeable tampering.
creato 8y ago
I find it irritating how the tech world conversation about this seems to center around "proof". This is not a court of law, it's not innocent until proven guilty. The bar for decision making on this issue is not "beyond an unreasonable doubt". We're talking about letting a company under the control of China, the country responsible for ongoing mass-scale industrial espionage at every level of our economy, build the core communications network for our country. It's insanity that it's even open for discussion.
- mc32 8y ago
  The media today has descended into opinion, disinformation, fud, fakery, outrage and whatever it takes to get clicks today with no regard to reputation and viability tomorrow. It’s a race to the bottom for ad dollars. It’s such a shame it’s come to this. I don’t think we can even question journalistic rigor since it’s hard to believe their editors care. Imagine your mother in a dispute with a neighbor, and you question your mother right in front of the neighbor. No, not all competitors are equal. The consequences of choosing one over the other is more than who will do the dishes tonight.
- will_wheat_on 8y ago
  You realise that’s how the rest of the world views the US? The US spies on the rest of the world; Cisco etc install back doors. The US was spying on Angela Merkel. For the emerging world, this is good, there’s finally a counterbalance to the NSA and US tech companies mass surveillance. The US isn’t the world’s largest economy anymore (PPP adjusted, soon to be in nominal terms as well.) so this idea that the rules of the game don’t apply to the US is past it’s sell by date. To someone with privilege, equality seems like oppression.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >there’s finally a counterbalance to the NSA and US tech companies mass surveillance. Pardon my analogy, but that sounds like one kick in the shins being counterbalanced by a second kick in the shins.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Whether or not other countries should US suppliers isn’t relevant to our own decision making process.
  - wnevets 8y ago
    Huh, what is the point you're trying to make by bringing up proof that companies can and have been influence by their host governments to spy and steal on their behalf? China would be crazy to let US controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural. US would be crazy to let Chinese controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural. Welcome to geopolitics.
TACIXAT 8y ago
>That’s the crux of the argument: nobody thinks Huawei is spying now. To get caught would be too dangerous. But nobody knows that it won’t spy in the future. Huawei was implicated in the hack on the African Union. [1,2] Now, that hasn't been proven anywhere, nor have they been formally accused, but it came up when Australia dropped them for 5G. 1. https://outline.com/WfCzFe https://outline.com/WfCzFe (same as [2], outlined) 2. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-security/china-used-huawei-to-hack-network-says-secret-report/news-story/510d3b17c2791cbcac18f047c64ab9d8 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-s...
- altmind 8y ago
  (Thank you for outline link, its a great service!) Quoting the same article > There’s no proof that Huawei was asked to participate or turn a blind eye to the breach, but we know that there was a breach and Huawei was the key provider (The article mentions ZTE, that was also hardware provider, but did not put the blame on them?) This link also mentions that the AU HQ was bugged with microphones(the compound was build by chinese subcontractors) that implies, that if attack was real, it involved more than mere cloud service and wifi provider https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquarters-hack-and-australias-5g-network/ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquar... But in general, the sources are not verifiable - the Le Monde itself, that seems to be the source, didnt mention huawei at all, the article quoted in parent comment mentions "australian national security source" https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-abeba-le-siege-de-l-union-africaine-espionne-par-les-chinois_5247521_3212.html https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-ab...
- markdown 8y ago
  USA has already been proven to be spying all over the world, tracking all our internet activity. And the suggestion that US spying is benign falls flat in the face of shit like this: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-cr...
natch 8y ago
From the article: >Only this week, the U.S. said it doesn’t need to show proof, citing the company’s ability to be "leveraged by the Chinese government." This is actually a valid argument. The leverage is all that is needed for there to be a real threat. However, it is also another reason responsible countries, which could include the US if it wants to be one <cough>, should not allow the creation of laws that would give them analogous leverage over equipment makers in their own countries. In other words, no back doors, and no "it's not a back door because we call it something different" back doors either, or else the US does not get to make this argument against Huawei.
ackbar03 8y ago
I've heard someone make the opinion that the only main US is so worked up about Huawei is the nsa can't get they're own backdoor in the equipment
- threeseed 8y ago
  Let's be clear. The US isn't the only one getting worked up here. It's the Five Eyes alliance countries as well as the EU and handfuls of other countries. Even if the NSA had backdoors in all of the equipment I would be much happier it be the US using the data than China. At least in US you have courts and journalists which will hold the government to account.
infinity0 8y ago
> [..] but there was no smoking gun that proved that the company was spying — only that it could at the request of Beijing. [China] doesn’t have a single law that can compel a company to spy on its behalf or put backdoors in its products [..] the government doesn’t need a law > Yet ironically, it’s the U.S. and the U.K. — and more recently Australia — that have laws in place that can in fact compel a company to turn over data, or force a company to install backdoors. Indeed, western national security politics is schizoprenic and hypocritical and can't be taken seriously. Instead of worrying specifically so much about Huawei, put funding towards developing secure communications technologies that render backdoors in communications backbones obsolete. This would also protect your own citizens against your own overreaching intelligence services.
iliketosleep 8y ago
Regardless of what Huawei has or hasn't done, it's written into Chinese law that Chinese organizations are oblidged to assist in espionage operations when needed. This means that companies like Huawei must be considered a national security threat by China's rivals. I'm sure China would view US companies in a similar way.
fredsmith27 8y ago
There is proof of a nation forcing its companies to give access so that it can spy on nationals not just at home but also abroad. The offending nation is the USA. And for those who believe this was 'legitimate' and to fight terrorism please note they were also caught spying on Angela Merkel to gain commercial advantage during TTIP discussions. And now the insinuations and slander orchestrated at government level to try to bring down a company that is beating them in the marketplace is further proof that the US government will do anything it can to give US companies an unfair advantage Suggesting we should not deal with the Chinese because we 'cannot trust them' is downright racist. I do not necessarily look for 'proof beyond reasonable doubt; but today NOTHING has been offered apart from rumours. The best way of avoiding conflict is to have deep rooted commercial interactions such that there is too much to lose from falling out with your neighbours. It has worked in Europe with the EU. Trump seems intent on destroying the existing deeply interwoven supply chains involved in technology today. No US chips in Chinese products and vica versa. Seems like preparations for conflict.
infact19 8y ago
All closed-source networking equipment is a national threat. Public infrastructure should use public, freely auditable technology. I know that technically telecom networks are privately owned, but they've become a vital utility to the public at this point, and should be treated as such imo.

36 points by symisc_devel 8y ago

I'm not sure "national security" and "without proof, is it a threat" go together. In national security, you make your best estimate, with evidence, but often with less than proof.

jammygit 8y ago

One could imagine various countries contributing to large open hardware projects and those governments preferring to use specific components that were manufactured 'locally.' That way you theoretically know what a part does, how it works, and you know it was at least not manufactured somewhere that worries you. I wonder if the cost of local manufacture would just be too high for the economics to work (edit: it would certainly help create jobs anyway)

twblalock 8y ago
Local manufacture could still be compromised by employees working for foreign governments, compromised suppliers, parts or finished goods being intercepted or modified during shipment, etc.
azernik 8y ago
That's a cost-benefit equation that every country needs to make for itself, but it's one that you see frequently in defense contracting - a country will be perfectly happy to buy e.g. a tank design (and several hundred examples) from a foreign country, as long as it includes the know-how to manufacture them locally. For example, in the rather interesting Israeli case, purchase of the F-35 was conditioned on Israel being able to replace the avionics, which are probably the part most vulnerable to unnoticeable tampering.

creato 8y ago

I find it irritating how the tech world conversation about this seems to center around "proof". This is not a court of law, it's not innocent until proven guilty. The bar for decision making on this issue is not "beyond an unreasonable doubt". We're talking about letting a company under the control of China, the country responsible for ongoing mass-scale industrial espionage at every level of our economy, build the core communications network for our country. It's insanity that it's even open for discussion.

mc32 8y ago
The media today has descended into opinion, disinformation, fud, fakery, outrage and whatever it takes to get clicks today with no regard to reputation and viability tomorrow. It’s a race to the bottom for ad dollars. It’s such a shame it’s come to this. I don’t think we can even question journalistic rigor since it’s hard to believe their editors care. Imagine your mother in a dispute with a neighbor, and you question your mother right in front of the neighbor. No, not all competitors are equal. The consequences of choosing one over the other is more than who will do the dishes tonight.
will_wheat_on 8y ago
You realise that’s how the rest of the world views the US? The US spies on the rest of the world; Cisco etc install back doors. The US was spying on Angela Merkel. For the emerging world, this is good, there’s finally a counterbalance to the NSA and US tech companies mass surveillance. The US isn’t the world’s largest economy anymore (PPP adjusted, soon to be in nominal terms as well.) so this idea that the rules of the game don’t apply to the US is past it’s sell by date. To someone with privilege, equality seems like oppression.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >there’s finally a counterbalance to the NSA and US tech companies mass surveillance. Pardon my analogy, but that sounds like one kick in the shins being counterbalanced by a second kick in the shins.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Whether or not other countries should US suppliers isn’t relevant to our own decision making process.
- wnevets 8y ago
  Huh, what is the point you're trying to make by bringing up proof that companies can and have been influence by their host governments to spy and steal on their behalf? China would be crazy to let US controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural. US would be crazy to let Chinese controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural. Welcome to geopolitics.

TACIXAT 8y ago

>That’s the crux of the argument: nobody thinks Huawei is spying now. To get caught would be too dangerous. But nobody knows that it won’t spy in the future. Huawei was implicated in the hack on the African Union. [1,2] Now, that hasn't been proven anywhere, nor have they been formally accused, but it came up when Australia dropped them for 5G. 1. https://outline.com/WfCzFe https://outline.com/WfCzFe (same as [2], outlined) 2. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-security/china-used-huawei-to-hack-network-says-secret-report/news-story/510d3b17c2791cbcac18f047c64ab9d8 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-s...

altmind 8y ago
(Thank you for outline link, its a great service!) Quoting the same article > There’s no proof that Huawei was asked to participate or turn a blind eye to the breach, but we know that there was a breach and Huawei was the key provider (The article mentions ZTE, that was also hardware provider, but did not put the blame on them?) This link also mentions that the AU HQ was bugged with microphones(the compound was build by chinese subcontractors) that implies, that if attack was real, it involved more than mere cloud service and wifi provider https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquarters-hack-and-australias-5g-network/ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquar... But in general, the sources are not verifiable - the Le Monde itself, that seems to be the source, didnt mention huawei at all, the article quoted in parent comment mentions "australian national security source" https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-abeba-le-siege-de-l-union-africaine-espionne-par-les-chinois_5247521_3212.html https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-ab...
markdown 8y ago
USA has already been proven to be spying all over the world, tracking all our internet activity. And the suggestion that US spying is benign falls flat in the face of shit like this: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-cr...

natch 8y ago

From the article: >Only this week, the U.S. said it doesn’t need to show proof, citing the company’s ability to be "leveraged by the Chinese government." This is actually a valid argument. The leverage is all that is needed for there to be a real threat. However, it is also another reason responsible countries, which could include the US if it wants to be one <cough>, should not allow the creation of laws that would give them analogous leverage over equipment makers in their own countries. In other words, no back doors, and no "it's not a back door because we call it something different" back doors either, or else the US does not get to make this argument against Huawei.

ackbar03 8y ago

I've heard someone make the opinion that the only main US is so worked up about Huawei is the nsa can't get they're own backdoor in the equipment

threeseed 8y ago
Let's be clear. The US isn't the only one getting worked up here. It's the Five Eyes alliance countries as well as the EU and handfuls of other countries. Even if the NSA had backdoors in all of the equipment I would be much happier it be the US using the data than China. At least in US you have courts and journalists which will hold the government to account.

infinity0 8y ago

> [..] but there was no smoking gun that proved that the company was spying — only that it could at the request of Beijing. [China] doesn’t have a single law that can compel a company to spy on its behalf or put backdoors in its products [..] the government doesn’t need a law > Yet ironically, it’s the U.S. and the U.K. — and more recently Australia — that have laws in place that can in fact compel a company to turn over data, or force a company to install backdoors. Indeed, western national security politics is schizoprenic and hypocritical and can't be taken seriously. Instead of worrying specifically so much about Huawei, put funding towards developing secure communications technologies that render backdoors in communications backbones obsolete. This would also protect your own citizens against your own overreaching intelligence services.

iliketosleep 8y ago

Regardless of what Huawei has or hasn't done, it's written into Chinese law that Chinese organizations are oblidged to assist in espionage operations when needed. This means that companies like Huawei must be considered a national security threat by China's rivals. I'm sure China would view US companies in a similar way.

fredsmith27 8y ago

There is proof of a nation forcing its companies to give access so that it can spy on nationals not just at home but also abroad. The offending nation is the USA. And for those who believe this was 'legitimate' and to fight terrorism please note they were also caught spying on Angela Merkel to gain commercial advantage during TTIP discussions. And now the insinuations and slander orchestrated at government level to try to bring down a company that is beating them in the marketplace is further proof that the US government will do anything it can to give US companies an unfair advantage Suggesting we should not deal with the Chinese because we 'cannot trust them' is downright racist. I do not necessarily look for 'proof beyond reasonable doubt; but today NOTHING has been offered apart from rumours. The best way of avoiding conflict is to have deep rooted commercial interactions such that there is too much to lose from falling out with your neighbours. It has worked in Europe with the EU. Trump seems intent on destroying the existing deeply interwoven supply chains involved in technology today. No US chips in Chinese products and vica versa. Seems like preparations for conflict.

infact19 8y ago

All closed-source networking equipment is a national threat. Public infrastructure should use public, freely auditable technology. I know that technically telecom networks are privately owned, but they've become a vital utility to the public at this point, and should be treated as such imo.