6 ms·

It's definitely a case of using the somewhat fair US court systems to enforce a do as we say not as we do scenario. I imagine the USG will envoke national secu

It's definitely a case of using the somewhat fair US court systems to enforce a do as we say not as we do scenario. I imagine the USG will envoke national security protections to limit exposure of any information as they have in the past. I don't really see this case going anywhere, more so with EU countries making similar claims and allegations of their operating practices.

dirtyid 8y ago
IMO Huawei's just seeking to rehabilitate their image, if the US refuses to publicly release evidence that contradicts the preponderance of sources that couldn't find back doors, then the entire US campaign against Huawei can be dismissed as a smear campaign. It's going to make US look dirty/petty and allows Huawei/China to save face. Huawei shares source code with GCHQ and US have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing, it wouldn't surprise me if there's actually nothing. Of course the concern is future potential risk, and that's valid. But the short term concern is to dismantle the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Long term the risk-benefit analysis of most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper). By most I countries I mean the the 150+ not under direct US sphere of influence. Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  > most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper) cheaper yes, but not really more advanced. (speaking of their RAN technology as well as their O&M plane, also their cloud is a clusterfcuk) > Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided. could you elaborate a bit more please? My understanding was that Australia, NZ, and UK were all aligned with the narrative pushed by the US. Which leaves Canada?
  - dirtyid 8y ago
    Australia was firm ban before US push due to past strains with China. US is obviously going to ban. UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow allies room to breath and "make independent" decision soon followed. China hit Australia with some coal ban, Canada with canola oil (over Meng extradition). I think everyone's just trying to manage the situation until after US-China trade deal settles. UK needs Chinese money because of Brexit. NZ also needs Chinese money and has... nothing much to steal. Canada... well I don't think we can hand Meng over to US and ban Huawei without being in the penalty box forever. Unrelated Poland wants to US base to buffer against Russia, they came down hard on Huawei because US won't base with Huawei infrastructure. Hence Germany considering Huawei is causing a lot of tension with all the US bases. Shouldn't have spied on Merkel I guess. It's all a mess.
    - richardwhiuk 8y ago
      NZ has an effective ban on Huawei kit aiui
      - dirtyid 8y ago
        https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new-zealand-says-chinas-huawei-hasnt-been-ruled-out-of-5g-role https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new-zealand-sa... Unless there's newer development. Like I said UK/CAN/NZ all waffled withing days of each other around time of article. It could just be theatre to help China save face, maintain trade while nominally soft ban. US declared after that they would not share intelligence with countries with Huawei kit. I don't think there's been development since. Who knows, if US trade deal with China screws over Five Eye allies - speculation that China is directing money from Canada canola oil, Australia coal to US coal and agriculture - maybe allies with be frustrated enough for the program to collapse.
    - tacticus 8y ago
      The coal ban in china is probably not related to .au more just protection of their internal coal mines.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    Uk is a user thou
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  What evidence is required to support the statement “a Chinese company will do whatever it’s told to do by the communist party irrespective of the law” The people that keep trying to defend that, have special Place with the people defending tobacco companies.
  - pyrale 8y ago
    That quote does apply to the US as well. As a reminder, the NSA was revealed to have an established practice of backdooring export Cisco routers.
  - atoav 8y ago
    Actual evidence of backdoors would be a start. There is a long list of state security enforced backdoors in american products. The list for Huawei is short. The US typically assumes the tactics itself uses must be used by anybody else. If you want us to choose between the Chinese and the Five Eyes spying on us, providing actual evidence for Chinese spying would be worth a lot for the side that has at least traces of “democratic oversight” left as a figleaf. I can certainly imagine incentives for the Chinese why they wouldn’t risk their long term gain for a short term spying information. To spy on everybody might be totally without alternative from the perspective of a struggling empire that crumbles on all corners, but not for a newcomer who might win more by not killing its tech industries by showing they can’t be trusted. Still, if there is compelling evidence I might change my mind on the matter.
    - ovi256 8y ago
      >Actual evidence of backdoors There doesn't have to be a backdoor today. In the future, whenever they desire, the Chinese gov can ask Huawei for access and they will comply. That's the threat model.
      - gsich 8y ago
        Same applies for other countries, nobody seems to care there. With companies like Cisco you don't even need that, seeing that they have a backdoor released every other week.
- ovi256 8y ago
  >have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing That means nothing, even if today the Chinese intelligence services take absolutely no interest in penetrating Huawei - which is laughable - that can change. If five years from now Huawei 5G equipment is used to build your countries 5G network, the Chinese gov uses their equivalent of a NSL and it's game over. Even if today's Huawei is clean. That's the real threat model. And that's why the US threatened 5 eyes countries to take away their access if they use Huawei equipment.
  - dirtyid 8y ago
    Yes the obvious concern is potential risk. But the PR spin is angry Americans (and allies) screaming China bad with no (public) evidence of back doors and a preponderance of public reports from governments and private security researchers that Huawei is clean. That's the kind of irrational sentiment Huawei wants to cultivate - innocent until proven guilty. Any rational person can see it's absurd to have China build critical infrastructure in the US who has unique security concerns as a hegemon. But her allies and other nations, not so much. This spin might be all that's needed for to rationalise Huawei. Personally, I just wouldn't be surprised if Huawei is actually operating cleanly on paper (in terms of back doors) out of pragmatism and foresight because confrontation with US security apparatus seems inevitable. Hence the lack of evidence from even private security researchers with no incentive to conceal. Huawei knows they're not getting into US. The PR is for 190 other countries, some of which might be five eye allies with how things are going.
    - atoav 8y ago
      I arrived at the same conclusion. The US is in panic, because not only is there a sense of crisis because the rest of the world is less and less willing to put up with the undemocratic behaviour of the US spying apperatus, this also hurts every US tech product abroad. If I have to choose between potential future spying by china and actual in progress spying by the US, maybe I might go with china for now.
  - jewelry_wolf 8y ago
    This threat model could apply to any Chinese companies or even any company outside US. Does that mean US could only use US-manufactured equipment? Does that mean the end of free market? Isn't the law system an evident based system? Is it enough to have such belief that it could go wrong to block competition?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  ...the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Wow that's the last several decades in a nutshell.

dirtyid 8y ago

IMO Huawei's just seeking to rehabilitate their image, if the US refuses to publicly release evidence that contradicts the preponderance of sources that couldn't find back doors, then the entire US campaign against Huawei can be dismissed as a smear campaign. It's going to make US look dirty/petty and allows Huawei/China to save face. Huawei shares source code with GCHQ and US have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing, it wouldn't surprise me if there's actually nothing. Of course the concern is future potential risk, and that's valid. But the short term concern is to dismantle the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Long term the risk-benefit analysis of most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper). By most I countries I mean the the 150+ not under direct US sphere of influence. Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
> most countries probably leans towards Huawei anyway (more advanced and cheaper) cheaper yes, but not really more advanced. (speaking of their RAN technology as well as their O&M plane, also their cloud is a clusterfcuk) > Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided. could you elaborate a bit more please? My understanding was that Australia, NZ, and UK were all aligned with the narrative pushed by the US. Which leaves Canada?
- dirtyid 8y ago
  Australia was firm ban before US push due to past strains with China. US is obviously going to ban. UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow allies room to breath and "make independent" decision soon followed. China hit Australia with some coal ban, Canada with canola oil (over Meng extradition). I think everyone's just trying to manage the situation until after US-China trade deal settles. UK needs Chinese money because of Brexit. NZ also needs Chinese money and has... nothing much to steal. Canada... well I don't think we can hand Meng over to US and ban Huawei without being in the penalty box forever. Unrelated Poland wants to US base to buffer against Russia, they came down hard on Huawei because US won't base with Huawei infrastructure. Hence Germany considering Huawei is causing a lot of tension with all the US bases. Shouldn't have spied on Merkel I guess. It's all a mess.
  - richardwhiuk 8y ago
    NZ has an effective ban on Huawei kit aiui
    - dirtyid 8y ago
      https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new-zealand-says-chinas-huawei-hasnt-been-ruled-out-of-5g-role https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new-zealand-sa... Unless there's newer development. Like I said UK/CAN/NZ all waffled withing days of each other around time of article. It could just be theatre to help China save face, maintain trade while nominally soft ban. US declared after that they would not share intelligence with countries with Huawei kit. I don't think there's been development since. Who knows, if US trade deal with China screws over Five Eye allies - speculation that China is directing money from Canada canola oil, Australia coal to US coal and agriculture - maybe allies with be frustrated enough for the program to collapse.
  - tacticus 8y ago
    The coal ban in china is probably not related to .au more just protection of their internal coal mines.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  Uk is a user thou
zaphirplane 8y ago
What evidence is required to support the statement “a Chinese company will do whatever it’s told to do by the communist party irrespective of the law” The people that keep trying to defend that, have special Place with the people defending tobacco companies.
- pyrale 8y ago
  That quote does apply to the US as well. As a reminder, the NSA was revealed to have an established practice of backdooring export Cisco routers.
- atoav 8y ago
  Actual evidence of backdoors would be a start. There is a long list of state security enforced backdoors in american products. The list for Huawei is short. The US typically assumes the tactics itself uses must be used by anybody else. If you want us to choose between the Chinese and the Five Eyes spying on us, providing actual evidence for Chinese spying would be worth a lot for the side that has at least traces of “democratic oversight” left as a figleaf. I can certainly imagine incentives for the Chinese why they wouldn’t risk their long term gain for a short term spying information. To spy on everybody might be totally without alternative from the perspective of a struggling empire that crumbles on all corners, but not for a newcomer who might win more by not killing its tech industries by showing they can’t be trusted. Still, if there is compelling evidence I might change my mind on the matter.
  - ovi256 8y ago
    >Actual evidence of backdoors There doesn't have to be a backdoor today. In the future, whenever they desire, the Chinese gov can ask Huawei for access and they will comply. That's the threat model.
    - gsich 8y ago
      Same applies for other countries, nobody seems to care there. With companies like Cisco you don't even need that, seeing that they have a backdoor released every other week.
ovi256 8y ago
>have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing That means nothing, even if today the Chinese intelligence services take absolutely no interest in penetrating Huawei - which is laughable - that can change. If five years from now Huawei 5G equipment is used to build your countries 5G network, the Chinese gov uses their equivalent of a NSL and it's game over. Even if today's Huawei is clean. That's the real threat model. And that's why the US threatened 5 eyes countries to take away their access if they use Huawei equipment.
- dirtyid 8y ago
  Yes the obvious concern is potential risk. But the PR spin is angry Americans (and allies) screaming China bad with no (public) evidence of back doors and a preponderance of public reports from governments and private security researchers that Huawei is clean. That's the kind of irrational sentiment Huawei wants to cultivate - innocent until proven guilty. Any rational person can see it's absurd to have China build critical infrastructure in the US who has unique security concerns as a hegemon. But her allies and other nations, not so much. This spin might be all that's needed for to rationalise Huawei. Personally, I just wouldn't be surprised if Huawei is actually operating cleanly on paper (in terms of back doors) out of pragmatism and foresight because confrontation with US security apparatus seems inevitable. Hence the lack of evidence from even private security researchers with no incentive to conceal. Huawei knows they're not getting into US. The PR is for 190 other countries, some of which might be five eye allies with how things are going.
  - atoav 8y ago
    I arrived at the same conclusion. The US is in panic, because not only is there a sense of crisis because the rest of the world is less and less willing to put up with the undemocratic behaviour of the US spying apperatus, this also hurts every US tech product abroad. If I have to choose between potential future spying by china and actual in progress spying by the US, maybe I might go with china for now.
- jewelry_wolf 8y ago
  This threat model could apply to any Chinese companies or even any company outside US. Does that mean US could only use US-manufactured equipment? Does that mean the end of free market? Isn't the law system an evident based system? Is it enough to have such belief that it could go wrong to block competition?
jessaustin 8y ago
...the US narrative which so far seems to be feels over reals. Wow that's the last several decades in a nutshell.