5 ms·

Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered. Huawei migh

Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered. Huawei might be forced to insert backdoors, just as the US government has forced/pressured American companies to insert backdoors into their products. In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure. After all we've learned about NSA spying, I find it amazing when Americans go on about Chinese spying, especially given that Huawei, as yet, has not been caught spying on its customers.

reaperducer 7y ago
Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-found-hidden-backdoors-in-huawei-equipment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-... In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure. So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Bloomberg's reporting on such issues is notorious. Just recall their report about SuperMicro. In the article you link above, Bloomberg calls a bug a "backdoor." Vodafone disputed Bloomberg's story, because there's a big difference between an unintentional vulnerability and an intentional backdoor. > So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist? The US should provide evidence for whatever claims it makes about Huawei. All there is, at the moment, is evidence-free innuendo. You don't use the power of the state to destroy a major company on the basis of pure speculation.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    I actually mixed this up with another claim of a backdoor (the bug). The Bloomberg claim of a backdoor, which you linked, is even more absurd. The "backdoor" was Telnet, which Huawei used during the initial configuration of the Vodafone equipment. Vodafone said to Bloomberg, "There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that Huawei conceals backdoors in its equipment."

reaperducer 7y ago

Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-found-hidden-backdoors-in-huawei-equipment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-... In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure. So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Bloomberg's reporting on such issues is notorious. Just recall their report about SuperMicro. In the article you link above, Bloomberg calls a bug a "backdoor." Vodafone disputed Bloomberg's story, because there's a big difference between an unintentional vulnerability and an intentional backdoor. > So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist? The US should provide evidence for whatever claims it makes about Huawei. All there is, at the moment, is evidence-free innuendo. You don't use the power of the state to destroy a major company on the basis of pure speculation.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  I actually mixed this up with another claim of a backdoor (the bug). The Bloomberg claim of a backdoor, which you linked, is even more absurd. The "backdoor" was Telnet, which Huawei used during the initial configuration of the Vodafone equipment. Vodafone said to Bloomberg, "There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that Huawei conceals backdoors in its equipment."