11 ms·
Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant
- assblaster 7y agoI truly am worried that Huawei technology is compromised. Why? I owned a Nexus 6p, made by Huawei, which was found to have a suspicious hardware "bug" where the battery's level is measured as higher than what is reported by the device itself. Huawei maintains that it is not a hardware issue, while Google says that it is a hardware problem. A class action lawsuit was just settled because of this. My suspicion: Huawei surreptitiously collected data, using up CPU threads, and core Android software did not detect this hardware usage. I know many many owners of the Nexus 6p that had this problem, and it was only this Nexus which had it, the only one made by Huawei.
- Topgamer7 7y agoDidn't know there was a class action. Mine used to die randomly all the time until I replaced the battery. I'm contemplating getting a new phone because a good portion of the time it's still slow AF
- assblaster 7y agohttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/4/11/18306552/google-huawei-nexus-6p-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-agreement-compensate https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2... $400 for you.
- assblaster 7y agoThe issue that I personally experienced is a random reboot, and when the phone restarts, it reads a battery level of 1% when prior to reboot it read as much as 45%. I exchanged it for a Pixel 1 because of extended warranty.
- chenster 7y agoGot creditable source?
- Scramblejams 7y agoFor me, the key quote: The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech in London in March. “With the benefit of hindsight it beggars belief that the countries which pioneered wireless technology – the United States, the UK, Germany, Japan and with wifi, Australia have got to the point where none of them are able to present to one of their own telcos a national, or a Five Eyes, champion in 5G,” he said. I would have thought Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and the like would have been all over 5G. Why weren't they?
- adventured 7y agoI think there was substantial skepticism among those nations and those companies that anybody was going to beat them to the punch, specifically that China would present such a credible offering. China went from barely having any tech in 1999, to showing up for the race by 2009, to competing to lead in 5G by 2019. If you asked Intel, Cisco, Qualcomm, or the European suppliers, about that in 2005 or 2010, they would have never believed it. Simply put, I think they all believed they could take their time and that the market was theirs (resting on one's laurels). They underestimated China's determination. We'll see if they keep making that mistake.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y agoAbsolutely right. Look at the profits if the incumbents over the last 20 years. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities for Cisco alone and in many cases the ridiculousness of them (passwords, keys, backdoors). They largely became a licensing, consulting and training company.
- fmajid 7y agoThere was no doubt. Even 20 years ago when I worked for France Telecom it was clear Huawei was going to eat Western telecom equipment manufacturers' lunch. They were outspending them 2:1.
- otoburb 7y agoThe US doesn't have large domain players in the telecom space that supply the broad spectrum of equipment that runs what is known as the 4G EPC[1] or 5G Core[2] (data & packet processing) and RAN[3] (radio access network). Qualcomm and Intel focus and specialize on chips. Cisco focuses on layer 2, layer 3 and partially layer 7 equipment (think: routers & switches). Cisco has some products that compete against Huawei to a certain extent, alongside a wider product suite by Ericsson and Nokia, but all three vendors are more expensive than Huawei. From the article: "But the options are limited. Huawei is one of only three major global companies that analysts say can supply a broad range of advanced mobile network equipment at scale. The other two are Ericsson and Nokia. And Huawei has a reputation among telecom operators for supplying cost-effective equipment promptly." As per the article, Huwaei is flat out cheaper. On top of this, they provide good-enough products (sometimes better, sometimes not) across performance, feature, stability and scale dimensions. The telecom vendor game is often one of references and precedent, especially when dealing with large telecom groups operating in multiple countries (think: Orange Group, Deutsche Telekom Group, Telefonica Group, Vodafone Group, etc.). [1] https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-... [2] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evolution-from-epc-to-5g-core-made-easy https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evoluti... [3] https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary
- luka-birsa 7y agoCan somebody TLDR; why 5G is so much more dangerous (security wise) vs 4G? Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.
- mzkply 7y agoDoesn't seem more dangerous due to the tech but due to the fact that no one from Western countries has actually built hardware that we can buy.
- nixpulvis 7y agoWell ignoring security for a minute, I have issues with anything that makes it easier for telecoms to charge for and provide different tiers of service for limited parts of the internet (net neutrality), and as I see it, pushing services towards the edge can't possibly work without some degree of opt in. Then there becomes a fundamental issue with the telecoms wanting things hosted on their nodes for performance, and small scale sites being to little to for the telecoms to care. This is all still very speculative, but there isn't a telecom out there I'd trust to run my servers. I agree we could use nice ways to serve content more locally, and there's already some solutions here, but I'm struggling to see how it works as part of a cell network protocol without redefining a lot of how we expect the internet to work.
- 123tqtqetrqgasd 7y agoMany reasons, you name it: - Almost any existent device will likely be connected to the Internet through 5G almost as fast as it became available - Access probably will be a LOT cheaper than 4G, will get there a lot faster (months not years), so everybody will be onboard ASAP - 5G network could easily replace many fiber optic deployments currently used by telecommunication companies big clients (so if you breach the 5G infrastructure, you're reaching internal networks in banks, trust funds, government sensitive information offices, whatever fancy dangerous stuff not suitable for public access) - 5G is REALLY FAST and RELIABLE, (very hight bandwith plus very, very low latency), so if you hack into something, or if you deploy malware, it will spread faster than the Thanos snap. The data exfiltration - taking your stolen data out to your infrastructure - could take a LOT less than now, this probably means the bad guys could hack out a lot more data than now, also probably using a "raw" approach: if you get in, just transfer everything you can access, right now - The massive (freaking massive) traffic you're going to see into the network monitoring infrastructure will probably be very similar to what Five Eyes currently sees for entire countries, but in city per city base (NY, Boston, DC, Berlin, Barcelona, etc.), so initially very few players will be able to get out something meaningful from the monitoring stuff, but what devices failed: more bad guys oportunities. Finally. - Whoever makes the hardware has the upper hand, you - whoever you are - go behind them, in almost any security scenario. So yeah, we need to have this stuff under some serious control. Trump is almost certainly right in his attemp to make what he's doing.
- dirkg 7y agoHypocrisy and arrogance at its finest - its ok for us to engage in illegal spying but not other countries. US leads the world in illegal activities and spying/stealing from foreign nations.
- TomVDB 7y ago> US leads the world in illegal activities and spying/stealing from foreign nations. That's one of those empty, non-falsifiable statements that don't do anything to further a discussion. Spying and illegal activities are by definition supposed to be secret. But it also doesn't matter. Because... > Hypocrisy and arrogance at its finest ... as a matter of general principle: it's in the best interest of a country to know what other countries are doing and to protect its own assets. There is no contradiction in doing both at the same time. If a country suspects that one of the cornerstones of its communication infrastructure is at risk of being infiltrated by a foreign power, it makes sense to take steps to avoid that. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not that principle applies to the Huawei case.
- adventured 7y agoIt's not hypocrisy or arrogance in any regard. The US does not view China as an ally, it's a competitor that the US sometimes cooperates with economically. The US and its allies are saying they prefer to keep the spying inside their own allied domain. That's not only entirely rational, it obviously makes perfect sense from a national self-interest standpoint. As an American, if I get to choose, I'm buying my 5G tech from European or Asian allies. I'll happily pay more for it. The US isn't saying China can't spy, it's universally understood that China is spying and will keep trying to, just as the US will. The US is basically openly saying it's going to attempt to counter or limit that spying, because China is a global rival in all regards. Just as China will always attempt to limit the ability of the US to spy on China and its interests. The same goes for Russia and its spying, going all the way back to the early days of the USSR.
- cfarm 7y agoChina can distribute its goods to the world, but the world cannot distribute its goods to it. I think this is part of the issue. i.e. Huawei can sell its tech to the US, but Google/Amazon/FB is more or less blocked in China. Countries obviously understand that they all spy on each other, maybe this is US' way of making sure tactics are "fair"?
- Leary 7y agoI hope the US and Europe can advance 5G so that it does not need to rely on Huawei. If there are true security threats, it's fine to not use Huawei, but we shouldn't use excessive export bans that damage American chip manufacturers and normal consumers who are just using their cell phones.
- themark 7y ago"The chance of a vulnerability with a Huawei piece of kit is much higher than other vendors," Is this British slang or a typo ?
- walshemj 7y ago? not sure what you mean is it the use of "kit"?
- mhh__ 7y agoPiece of kit is a british idiom, yes if that's what you mean.
- themark 7y agoI have never seen it before, thanks. I read it another way.
- hunta2097 7y agohttps://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2012/09/17/piece-of-kit/ https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2012/09/17/piece-of-kit/
- 123tqtqetrqgasd 7y agoJust LOLed away
- sonnyblarney 7y agokit = gear
- thommark 7y agoI'm from Netherlands, and My country recently found some backdoors in Huawei equipments. This might be why the US/EU is actively blocking Huawei: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech/dutch-spy-agency-investigating-alleged-huawei-backdoor-volkskrant-idUSKCN1SM0UY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech/d...
- takamh 7y ago"Citing unidentified intelligence sources" An option would be to confidentially share with UK or German intelligence agencies and verify, but they chose instead to publish a vague article. Seems doubtful this will result in anything concrete.
- likeabbas 7y agoReuters has proven to be a trustworthy news organization. It’s understandable that Intelligence services don’t want to go on the record for having an ongoing investigation into a Chinese telecom
- eaim 7y agoTheir reputation notwithstanding, it makes little difference if all they are doing is taking notes or passing along statements, rather than digging & getting answers. That’s the forgotten duty of true reportage & journalism. They don’t get a free pass as a “trustworthy news organisation” just because what they report isn’t wrong, if they also aren’t reporting anything useful.
- eaim 7y agoAll is vagueness. It’s popular! Why bother with evidence when agencies / governments / media can simply make vague statements about threats & security? Oh & of course we can’t supply evidence because that would threaten our security also. Circulus In probando
- thommark 7y ago
- ETHisso2017 7y agoIf this is a war, then did Google, Broadcom, Microsoft, the rest of the US tech sector, and the worldwide Android community just get forcibly conscripted into service by the US government?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jostmey 7y agoCorporations are people too! So yes, I guess they can be consrcipted
- lern_too_spel 7y agoHuawei can still use Android. They just can't install Google apps on their devices, like Amazon.
- sonnyblarney 7y agoThe 'trade war' has been going on for 30 years, we just didn't care that China was doing certain things until it hit home. It was arguably beneficial to not worry about China's IP issues, foreign ownership, capital controls etc. in the 1990's because a growing China was good for everyone. Now it's not, so there's a realignment. There's cynicism here, but both issues are perfectly credible: trade/technology and security. There are a ton of externalizations that enable China to provide, especially 'services' so cheaply. Those externalizations matter in trade, and probably should be capture in some form of tariff. i.e. it's not actually 'cheaper' for Sweden to buy stuff from China, if all things otherwise equal the only difference is the manufacturer in China doesn't have to pay for carbon taxes or something like that. It's just moving deck chairs around.
- cfarm 7y agoMore like governments are at "war" and all the big corporations caught in the middle of trade are the "weapons".
- throw20102010 7y agoEvery American company is at the beck and call of the US government at all times, with their existence in peril if they disobey. The US government has been regulating trade like this since before we were born, and most of the time we don't even notice. This is not the first time that Silicon Valley had to obey US government regulations. Notice that there are hardly any Iranian or North Korean tech companies doing business around the world- any US company that transfers technology to a hostile country gets shut down and people go to jail, and it's not even controversial. The only thing that's unique with this case is that it's rare for the US government to be so openly hostile toward a major trade partner.
- craigsmansion 7y agoLooks like the new cold war has found its money-pit. At least it's not nuclear this time. > agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency Straight from the geniuses that outlawed mathematics. I'm sure not all of the "cyber security" people are complete idiots, but how many can resist an offer of unlimited funding, and all you have to do say things are terrible and very scary without ever being caught out, since it's all about national security, and your boss doesn't really care because more bad things mean infinite budget. "Cyber" really has stopped being a useful word in as far as it's ever been one, and has been relegated to politics, scaring the population, and fleecing people and institutions in the name of "security". 1.) 5G is a mobile network that lets people watch really high- resolution cat videos really fast. 2.) Your country is not under "cyber attack" or "cyber threat". History tells us most of the threats and developments in Cold War I were posturing and positioning. Of course Blackbird planes are really cool, but do we really have to go through the rest of all that bullshit again? Can't we all just, you know, grow the f* up?
- chrischen 7y agoHas it occurred that the US opposition to using telecom equipment from Huawei might be because they can't send them a national security letter or otherwise force them to make a backdoor (kind of like how Apple resisted) for domestic spying? I feel like if China were to backdoor 5G equipment deployed to the US it'd be relatively trivial to detect by operators, and absolutely crippling to the market share of Huawei if they were found to compromise their equipment.
- geowwy 7y agoI think it's partly that, and partly just that having other countries rely on you for their infrastructure gives you more political leverage. US wants to deny political leverage to China and take it for itself.
- chrischen 7y agoThe world would be a better place if people just came out straight to the point like that.
- femto 7y agoThis strikes me as a brilliant opportunity to push for a complete Free Software stack for a phone. There will soon be a heap of 5G phone hardware going cheap. Software support will be lacking. The hardware manufacturer may well be open to publicly releasing the information independent third party developers will require to write software for their otherwise useless phones. If you're reading this Huawei, why not dump all the required information on your web site right now?
- 0815test 7y agoHuawei is not known as an open company, if anything they're the very opposite. They stopped providing unlock ability for their mobile devices some time back, and even before that they were known for having by far the hardest system to work with for phone "modders" - bricked hardware was exceedingly common, and zero outside support was provided. That's incredibly harsh even by CN standards.
- mycall 7y agoMy Nexus 6P was made by Huawei and was very unlockable. Did I know if Huawei had a backdoor in the radio bin? idk.
- femto 7y agoAnd now it will be possible to get one's hands on truckloads of potential bricks for almost nothing. If the community makes enough bricks it will eventually learn how not to make bricks. Those lessons can then be applied to other phones with similar architectures.
- sunstone 7y agoHey China has worked to exclude or minimize US tech companies from China so turn about is fair play. In fact the US would be well within their (tit for tat) rights to exclude a few more Chinese tech companies.
- m-p-3 7y agoLooks like China is getting a taste of its own protectionist measures.