12 ms·

Huawei Technicians Helped African Governments Spy on Political Opponents

295 points by Bostonian 7y ago

ETHisso2017 7y ago
Seems these activities were conducted without Huawei corporate being aware or involved. Still an embarrassing compliance failure on their part.
- throw7 7y ago
  I'm sure huawei corporate is correcting the issue right now. /s But who do you think trained the ugandan cyber-surveillance team in the first place? You can piece it together from the article: They had pegasus and were trained by the israeli company (probably not an advanced version... the one that just parses unencrypted comms). But they even said it was simplistic and needed/wanted more. Of course Huawei trained them. When they were unable to "punch" through with the "pegasus-style" spyware themselves, they strolled up to their teachers and said help us senpai.
  - adinobro 7y ago
    Maybe it was an ex-Cisco employee? They helped China in the first place and the Huawei hardware is almost the same. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-dodge-responsibility-facilitating-human-rights-abuses-export https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-... I don't know if the Chinese firewall has been upgraded to Chinese hardware or if it is still running on US hardware. This kind of hardware often last for 10+ years so I would not be surprised if the hardware is still mostly from Cisco.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>A pop star turned political sensation, Bobi Wine, had returned from Washington with U.S. backing for his opposition movement, and Uganda’s cyber-surveillance unit had strict orders to intercept his encrypted communications, using the broad powers of a 2010 law that gives the government the ability “to secure its multidimensional interests.” I suspect that most countries would try to intercept the communications of an opposition candidate that was openly backed by a foreign power.
- justicezyx 7y ago
  The assumption of the author and many people or even majority is that backing by USA is not only legitimate, it's also morally superior.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Well the US is good. All other governments are suspect.
    - devoply 7y ago
      Yes the bugs are bad, would you like to hear more?
      - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
        I’m thinking of enlisting. I really want to have a baby.
  - pryce 7y ago
    The obvious ethical territory here isn't particularly difficult: deploring both the US action (in this case political interference) and the Huawei/CCP interference (political interference via an attack on civil liberties). Commentators who are only interested in critiquing rival states ought to be viewed as discrediting themselves.
- mlindner 7y ago
  You realize you're defending a government that illegally shot and attacked the person in question and then arrested and tortured him, right? After which he was released and fled back to the US for medical treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kyagulanyi_Ssentamu#Arrest_and_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kyagulanyi_Ssentamu#Arr...
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Defending the specific act of spying on foreign political influence isn't the same as defending the entire government, or even other actions related to that spying (such as the torture you mentioned). By this logic, if someone 'bad' does anything, that anything can be claimed to be sinister and unreasonable, and any statements otherwise are "defending someone bad".
weq 7y ago
TDLR; Company owned by oppressive regime helps other oppressive regimes prosper in exchange for unfetted access to the countries resources. There is news here. But its not about spying. https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-assets-taken-over-huge-unpaid-chinese-loans-and-dept/ https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-asset... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chinas-fishing-industry-dwarfs-rest-worlds-study-suggests https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chin...
- jimclegg 7y ago
  Shocking that Israel barely gets a mention in this article (you know, the actual supplier of the surveillance tech used). So we just ignore that Israeli companies sell spy tech to every corrupt government on the planet and instead focus on demonizing Huawei giving Africans cheap 5G? Trade war inspired reporting, not surprising coming from the Murdoch rag WSJ.
  - flagfeedingusa 7y ago
    Mentioning Israel or someone who is jewish, in any way, regardless of whether or not its true is anti-semitic. The fact that you'd even udder the word "Israel" means you are, in fact on par with being a nazi.
- hrktb 7y ago
  I find the term “oppresive” to be more and more difficult to get a handle on when everything is on a spectrum now. People draw the line somewhere that puts them in the “non-appressive” camp, and justify it in so many ways (“you can’t compare because the other side does really bad things”), but it tends to hide how the lines are much more murky, the “oppressive” side is supported from the other countries, which also look at it like a live experiment to see how far they could get away with it. Before Huawei it was european or US companies that where eyeing the market, and I feel like Huawei just happened to win the bids so we can now point the finger at them.
- rntksi 7y ago
  Quoted directly from the article: "The Journal investigation didn’t turn up evidence of spying by or on behalf of Beijing in Africa. Nor did it find that Huawei executives in China knew of, directed or approved the activities described. It also didn’t find that there was something particular about the technology in Huawei’s network that made such activities possible." There were activities that infringed privacy, but (I believe) not attributable to Huawei hardware or anything. In the article it mentions Huawei employees helping the govt get malware/insider onto the Whatsapp group chat.
motohagiography 7y ago
Huawei will likely become the main competition for NSO group and companies like it, but that's the least of the worlds worries. Governments with resource wealth don't need large public services that would operate a sophisticated intelligence service, so they outsource it. So far these governments have been doing point targeting against dissidents w/ mercenary surveillance companies, but it's possible these companies are about to be steamrolled by one that implements their products as a free feature of their entire infrastructure. The bargain will be, we'll support your campaign/coup and modernize your infrastructure for your people, while giving you intel we collect on your dissidents and opposition. Then, once Huawei infrastructure is ensconced, no government will get into power who does not have support from China. A very "harmonious," cycle. Want be be elected again? Secure our rights to extract rare earth minerals. Etc. The company is a projection of Chinese state power, not unlike western telcoms with 5EYES and the ITU has been. The difference is the Party lacks the sentimentality of western countries when it comes to issues of total surveillance and intervention to maintain control. (Albeit, we have never been above supporting butchers either, so YMMV.) My prediction is that once the Huawei gear is in place, a country's political class will turn to face east on policy and resource questions. It's pure leverage. Western tech companies can't make the same promises to those governments either. It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi Amin, but Huawei doesn't have that constraint. So far, the world has been content to deal with the devil it knows. Anyway, I'd say this article is an anecdote of a larger geopolitical shift. Containing Huawei should be a national security priority for everyone, but tbh, it's looking more and more like our respective mere leviathans have become oversized, slow moving prey for their hydra.
- rtpg 7y ago
  > It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi Amin I wish this were the case, but western companies are constantly supplying both software and hardware to repressive regimes. Hell, weapons! Though the fact that we believe that western tech companies can't make those promises means that there's at least public support for making this a reality
- majia 7y ago
  What you said about Huawei is more applicable to Boeing, which sells weapon systems instead of telecom gears. You may want to look at how US companies are involved in arm sales to Saudi. It’s fair that US wants to contain China’s leverage in Africa and maintain its own, but this is a national security priority for US , not “everyone”.
hnthrow11 7y ago
Just like the CIA
Multicomp 7y ago
I wonder if things would be different if this individual was using, say, Signal, Conversations.im with omemo enabled, Briar, Wire, Threema, or other related e2ee enabled application. WhatsApp et al just have less security overall.
aussieguy1234 7y ago
The best way to stop companies doing unethical things like this is to vote with your wallet, buy your stuff elsewhere. Use a good online list to pre-screen companies before you buy from them like https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-criticisms/ https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-criti...
rdlecler1 7y ago
What’s their corporate culture slogan, “Be evil”?
- tedeh 7y ago
  Speak no evil
Nokinside 7y ago
Mobile networks can be considered strategic infrastructure. Normally US State Department would be working closely with US companies to push back against Huawei with all kinds of political tie-ins and perks. Except that the US is not in the market. US based mobile network infrastructure assets (Lucent Technologies and Motorola's wireless network infrastructure business) were sold to Europeans long time ago. Both of them are part of Nokia today. Nokia and Ericsson compete without government support against China backed Huawei and ZTE. Huawei is most likely government owned/controlled enterprise: Balding, Christopher and Clarke, Donald C., Who Owns Huawei? (April 17, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  No, there's no indication whatsoever that Huawei is government-owned. Stop spreading FUD. There are plenty of state-owned enterprises in China, but Huawei isn't one of them.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    Theres a lot of evidence that they are state-owned. For example, a large number of board members being active in the CCP
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      That has nothing to do with being state-owned. Lots of people in China are in the party. China has SOEs. It has private companies. They operate quite differently from one another. Huawei operates like one of the latter, and legally, definitely is one of the latter.
      - DeonPenny 7y ago
        The way you explain it makes it seem like we shouldn't trust any Chinese companies to be separate from the party so not sure what you were going for but it's had the opposite effect.
heisenbit 7y ago
Mobile infrastructure provider are almost always delivering tech to monitor phone locations and communications. It is not unreasonable to expect them to support of such equipment. What would you do if your job is to support the sold and euphemistically called ‚lawful interception gateway‘ in a place with loose laws? This is mostly dual use tech.
- Nokinside 7y ago
  Wassenaar Agreement has export controls on surveillance tools but it's very loose and not legally binding. China is not a member.
jjgreen 7y ago
The Reg nails this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_repor...
- RustyRussell 7y ago
  That was fantastic, thanks. I feel that would have made a better HN submission itself.
sbhn 7y ago
I thought it was facebook who helped cambridge analytica,
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

295 points by Bostonian 7y ago

ETHisso2017 7y ago

Seems these activities were conducted without Huawei corporate being aware or involved. Still an embarrassing compliance failure on their part.

throw7 7y ago
I'm sure huawei corporate is correcting the issue right now. /s But who do you think trained the ugandan cyber-surveillance team in the first place? You can piece it together from the article: They had pegasus and were trained by the israeli company (probably not an advanced version... the one that just parses unencrypted comms). But they even said it was simplistic and needed/wanted more. Of course Huawei trained them. When they were unable to "punch" through with the "pegasus-style" spyware themselves, they strolled up to their teachers and said help us senpai.
- adinobro 7y ago
  Maybe it was an ex-Cisco employee? They helped China in the first place and the Huawei hardware is almost the same. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-dodge-responsibility-facilitating-human-rights-abuses-export https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-... I don't know if the Chinese firewall has been upgraded to Chinese hardware or if it is still running on US hardware. This kind of hardware often last for 10+ years so I would not be surprised if the hardware is still mostly from Cisco.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

>A pop star turned political sensation, Bobi Wine, had returned from Washington with U.S. backing for his opposition movement, and Uganda’s cyber-surveillance unit had strict orders to intercept his encrypted communications, using the broad powers of a 2010 law that gives the government the ability “to secure its multidimensional interests.” I suspect that most countries would try to intercept the communications of an opposition candidate that was openly backed by a foreign power.

justicezyx 7y ago
The assumption of the author and many people or even majority is that backing by USA is not only legitimate, it's also morally superior.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Well the US is good. All other governments are suspect.
  - devoply 7y ago
    Yes the bugs are bad, would you like to hear more?
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      I’m thinking of enlisting. I really want to have a baby.
- pryce 7y ago
  The obvious ethical territory here isn't particularly difficult: deploring both the US action (in this case political interference) and the Huawei/CCP interference (political interference via an attack on civil liberties). Commentators who are only interested in critiquing rival states ought to be viewed as discrediting themselves.
mlindner 7y ago
You realize you're defending a government that illegally shot and attacked the person in question and then arrested and tortured him, right? After which he was released and fled back to the US for medical treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kyagulanyi_Ssentamu#Arrest_and_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kyagulanyi_Ssentamu#Arr...
- deogeo 7y ago
  Defending the specific act of spying on foreign political influence isn't the same as defending the entire government, or even other actions related to that spying (such as the torture you mentioned). By this logic, if someone 'bad' does anything, that anything can be claimed to be sinister and unreasonable, and any statements otherwise are "defending someone bad".

weq 7y ago

TDLR; Company owned by oppressive regime helps other oppressive regimes prosper in exchange for unfetted access to the countries resources. There is news here. But its not about spying. https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-assets-taken-over-huge-unpaid-chinese-loans-and-dept/ https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-asset... https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chinas-fishing-industry-dwarfs-rest-worlds-study-suggests https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chin...

jimclegg 7y ago
Shocking that Israel barely gets a mention in this article (you know, the actual supplier of the surveillance tech used). So we just ignore that Israeli companies sell spy tech to every corrupt government on the planet and instead focus on demonizing Huawei giving Africans cheap 5G? Trade war inspired reporting, not surprising coming from the Murdoch rag WSJ.
- flagfeedingusa 7y ago
  Mentioning Israel or someone who is jewish, in any way, regardless of whether or not its true is anti-semitic. The fact that you'd even udder the word "Israel" means you are, in fact on par with being a nazi.
hrktb 7y ago
I find the term “oppresive” to be more and more difficult to get a handle on when everything is on a spectrum now. People draw the line somewhere that puts them in the “non-appressive” camp, and justify it in so many ways (“you can’t compare because the other side does really bad things”), but it tends to hide how the lines are much more murky, the “oppressive” side is supported from the other countries, which also look at it like a live experiment to see how far they could get away with it. Before Huawei it was european or US companies that where eyeing the market, and I feel like Huawei just happened to win the bids so we can now point the finger at them.
rntksi 7y ago
Quoted directly from the article: "The Journal investigation didn’t turn up evidence of spying by or on behalf of Beijing in Africa. Nor did it find that Huawei executives in China knew of, directed or approved the activities described. It also didn’t find that there was something particular about the technology in Huawei’s network that made such activities possible." There were activities that infringed privacy, but (I believe) not attributable to Huawei hardware or anything. In the article it mentions Huawei employees helping the govt get malware/insider onto the Whatsapp group chat.

motohagiography 7y ago

Huawei will likely become the main competition for NSO group and companies like it, but that's the least of the worlds worries. Governments with resource wealth don't need large public services that would operate a sophisticated intelligence service, so they outsource it. So far these governments have been doing point targeting against dissidents w/ mercenary surveillance companies, but it's possible these companies are about to be steamrolled by one that implements their products as a free feature of their entire infrastructure. The bargain will be, we'll support your campaign/coup and modernize your infrastructure for your people, while giving you intel we collect on your dissidents and opposition. Then, once Huawei infrastructure is ensconced, no government will get into power who does not have support from China. A very "harmonious," cycle. Want be be elected again? Secure our rights to extract rare earth minerals. Etc. The company is a projection of Chinese state power, not unlike western telcoms with 5EYES and the ITU has been. The difference is the Party lacks the sentimentality of western countries when it comes to issues of total surveillance and intervention to maintain control. (Albeit, we have never been above supporting butchers either, so YMMV.) My prediction is that once the Huawei gear is in place, a country's political class will turn to face east on policy and resource questions. It's pure leverage. Western tech companies can't make the same promises to those governments either. It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi Amin, but Huawei doesn't have that constraint. So far, the world has been content to deal with the devil it knows. Anyway, I'd say this article is an anecdote of a larger geopolitical shift. Containing Huawei should be a national security priority for everyone, but tbh, it's looking more and more like our respective mere leviathans have become oversized, slow moving prey for their hydra.

rtpg 7y ago
> It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi Amin I wish this were the case, but western companies are constantly supplying both software and hardware to repressive regimes. Hell, weapons! Though the fact that we believe that western tech companies can't make those promises means that there's at least public support for making this a reality
majia 7y ago
What you said about Huawei is more applicable to Boeing, which sells weapon systems instead of telecom gears. You may want to look at how US companies are involved in arm sales to Saudi. It’s fair that US wants to contain China’s leverage in Africa and maintain its own, but this is a national security priority for US , not “everyone”.

hnthrow11 7y ago

Just like the CIA

Multicomp 7y ago

I wonder if things would be different if this individual was using, say, Signal, Conversations.im with omemo enabled, Briar, Wire, Threema, or other related e2ee enabled application. WhatsApp et al just have less security overall.

aussieguy1234 7y ago

The best way to stop companies doing unethical things like this is to vote with your wallet, buy your stuff elsewhere. Use a good online list to pre-screen companies before you buy from them like https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-criticisms/ https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-criti...

rdlecler1 7y ago

What’s their corporate culture slogan, “Be evil”?

tedeh 7y ago
Speak no evil

Nokinside 7y ago

Mobile networks can be considered strategic infrastructure. Normally US State Department would be working closely with US companies to push back against Huawei with all kinds of political tie-ins and perks. Except that the US is not in the market. US based mobile network infrastructure assets (Lucent Technologies and Motorola's wireless network infrastructure business) were sold to Europeans long time ago. Both of them are part of Nokia today. Nokia and Ericsson compete without government support against China backed Huawei and ZTE. Huawei is most likely government owned/controlled enterprise: Balding, Christopher and Clarke, Donald C., Who Owns Huawei? (April 17, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
No, there's no indication whatsoever that Huawei is government-owned. Stop spreading FUD. There are plenty of state-owned enterprises in China, but Huawei isn't one of them.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  Theres a lot of evidence that they are state-owned. For example, a large number of board members being active in the CCP
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    That has nothing to do with being state-owned. Lots of people in China are in the party. China has SOEs. It has private companies. They operate quite differently from one another. Huawei operates like one of the latter, and legally, definitely is one of the latter.
    - DeonPenny 7y ago
      The way you explain it makes it seem like we shouldn't trust any Chinese companies to be separate from the party so not sure what you were going for but it's had the opposite effect.

heisenbit 7y ago

Mobile infrastructure provider are almost always delivering tech to monitor phone locations and communications. It is not unreasonable to expect them to support of such equipment. What would you do if your job is to support the sold and euphemistically called ‚lawful interception gateway‘ in a place with loose laws? This is mostly dual use tech.

Nokinside 7y ago
Wassenaar Agreement has export controls on surveillance tools but it's very loose and not legally binding. China is not a member.

jjgreen 7y ago

The Reg nails this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_repor...

RustyRussell 7y ago
That was fantastic, thanks. I feel that would have made a better HN submission itself.

sbhn 7y ago

I thought it was facebook who helped cambridge analytica,

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]