9 ms·

Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network. Would not be fun for the U.S.

Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network. Would not be fun for the U.S. to have done to them what they've done to others. And as a U.S. resident, even as I acknowledge and deplore what the U.S. intelligence services have done to others, I still don't want China to do that to me. This is not an area where equitable (but bad) treatment makes things right IMO.

rtkwe 7y ago
It wouldn't be so bad with ubiquitous end to end encryption though right? If everything was encrypted in transit it wouldn't really matter if Huawei (and by extension the supposition goes the Chinese government) because they'd just see noise. Guess they would also be able to do location tracking though and that's not so easily solved.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Yes, this is my understanding. But, haven't USA for Adobe history wrt "backdooring" the encryption algorithms themselves (ie private knowledge allows decryption to be made plausible [but still costly]).
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  The US government does not get to dictate mobile phone standards so that is irrelevant. Besides, it’s not like the US government doesn’t have its hand in the sniffing cookie jar, they don’t really want the traffic to be indecipherable.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  I mean, you can do a lot with metadata. Also, I think quite a bit of telecomm traffic is encrypted by the telecomm carrier itself. For example I don't think my iPhone, by default, encrypts/decrypts SMS or voice calls on the device. To the extent text messages and mobile phone calls are resistant to dumb eavesdropping, that's provided by the mobile carrier. So having access into all the equipment at the carrier would be a nice centralized place to sit and observe/record.
- ckocagil 7y ago
  Governments are focusing more and more on end-to-end encryption. It can be banned within the next 5 years. They could need to manufacture some consent before that (e.g. mention e2e in the news every time a major crime is committed).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - maqp 7y ago
    Not going to happen, considering djb vs US declared code free-speech; E2EE is implemented in code so you can't ban it without violating the constitution.
- freeflight 7y ago
  Even end to end encryption often leaves them with metadata [0] [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
  - maqp 7y ago
    Which is why you'll want to use some open source onion-routed app like Briar, Ricochet, Cwtch, TFC, or Session.
    - tP5n 7y ago
      Using tor to keep your communications secret is like having ACAB tattooed on your forehead - fine if you like the attention, not exactly useful if you don't.
      - maqp 7y ago
        It is when everyone uses Tor. Nobody uses Tor: Everyone is surveilled. Few activists use Tor: Activists are easy to pick and everyone else is easy to surveill. Everyone uses Tor: Nobody can be surveilled. Nothing to gain by not using Tor, only one way to win, use Tor and tell everyone else to use Tor too. It's like the prisoner's dilemma, and not using Tor is like betraying others just in case things ever get bad.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  There is metadata, but you also have frequent bugs or other errata that render encryption vulnerable. A nation-state type actor can hoover up everything and retroactively decrypt.
- xorcist 7y ago
  There is also the risk of disrupting network operations at some unfortunate time, especially since these new networks are thought to be dominated by machine-to-machine communications.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Funny, I don't really care China spying on me as much since they just don't have any handles that would be relevant. Your own government spying on you is much more dangerous. And since I don't have influence on policies of China, I can at least hold domestic politicians that strive for more surveillance accountable. At least theoretically. History shows that government isn't your friend at all. The US might be a rare exception from time to time. But even that would be very, very limited. Doesn't mean I wouldn't mind 5G spyware from another country.
- ben_w 7y ago
  You might be a god-fearing clean-shaven American, but I strongly suspect the number of Americans who have secrets they can be blackmailed over is at least one percent. While I’d like to change every society so such secrets are not big issues, I don’t expect that to happen, and 3.5 million Americans being potentially blackmailed by a superpower is something I’d prefer to avoid even though I’m not an American and don’t expect to live in the USA.
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    > but I strongly suspect the number of Americans who have secrets they can be blackmailed over is at least one percent. 1 %? I assume 80+ %. E v e r y o n e has secrets.
- chungus_khan 7y ago
  Even saying that the US is your friend isn't really true. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and MKULTRA were only ended in the 70s, Orlando Letelier happened the same decade, as did the discovery of Operation Mockingbird and other Church Committee findings. Every peek we've had into that world since then continues to come up dirty too. Operation SHAMROCK was considered a big deal at the time, but we've since then allowed American intelligence to vastly eclipse anything even conceivable at the time. Other countries programs aren't good or anything, but anyone who's deluded themselves into thinking the US is some kind of clean actor, not participating in this sort of stuff, or only using it for good is more optimistic than I could ever manage being.
fanatic2pope 7y ago
When this stuff is used against you, it is FAR more likely going to be from a domestic group hostile to a political opinion you might have. Imagine if an outfit like Cambridge Analytica had the resources of a nation state helping it collect and process information about who might support any given policy (and be given the carrot) and who might oppose it (and be given the stick). That's the scale of threat we face. While certain governments around the world are asking for mandatory back door access to encryption, rest assured they have a "plan B" for getting access to your information without it, and the 3 letter departments are front and center in those plans.
- shostack 7y ago
  I'm not clear if your post was implying this was the case or not, but this is an interesting, well-sourced article on the links between Cambridge Analytica and Russia [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...
  - Forgivenessizer 7y ago
    It's not very important if it's paywalled. ie you wouldn't paywall what is necessary to bring about the savlation of humanity.
huaweiward 7y ago
Not because they uniquely enable the user to switch off their 2G radios and thereby defeat now trivial MITM?
thrwowman1 7y ago
Or maybe simply because the US intelligence not having a backdoor is why the're demonizing Huawei in Europe for example. That doesn't imply that Huawei does have a backdoor, simply that they'd not be able to spy anymore...
- vinay427 7y ago
  Not sure how that makes sense when the alternatives to Huawei proposed and supported by the US are European, primarily Ericsson and Nokia. Where is the self-interest in the US pressuring European (mostly EU) countries to use EU competitors?
AndyMcConachie 7y ago
The political squabble over 5G/Huawei is as much about western vendors using fear of China to prevent competition. Why should Cisco/Juniper/Ericsson/etc compete with Huawei when they can more easily use political pressure to exclude them from the market?
Seenso 7y ago
> Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network. Would not be fun for the U.S. to have done to them what they've done to others. Exactly. Huawei even kinda smells the same. From the OP: > As Widman settled in, the secret partners adopted a set of principles for rigged algorithms, according to the BND history. They had to be “undetectable by usual statistical tests” and, if discovered, be “easily masked as implementation or human errors.” > In other words, when cornered, Crypto executives would blame sloppy employees or clueless users. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversight_board_savaging_annual_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi...: > Huawei savaged by Brit code review board over pisspoor dev practices > "The work of HCSEC [Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre]… reveals serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence," said the HCSEC oversight board in its annual report, published this morning.
dontbenebby 7y ago
>Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network Makes me wonder what we've done using the fact US companies (ex: Cisco) control large swathes of the internet's infrastructure.
- sumedh 7y ago
  > US companies (ex: Cisco) control large swathes of the internet's infrastructure. Wouldn't China/Russia make some noise if they had proof the Cisco was hiding something in their infra?
  - dontbenebby 7y ago
    I thought the whole point of such things is it's near impossible to prove? Also complaining means you reveal what you know, which helps narrow what you don't know.
  - modo_mario 7y ago
    I think they're pretty good at keeping it hidden and remote. It was proven the US did economic espionage on a German firm but the snowden files showed a range of other European companies also targeted. No doubt they also focus on "less friendly" targets industry, infrastructure and politics.
yumcimil 7y ago
it could be as simple as Huawei refusing to install a backdoor for them.

rtkwe 7y ago

It wouldn't be so bad with ubiquitous end to end encryption though right? If everything was encrypted in transit it wouldn't really matter if Huawei (and by extension the supposition goes the Chinese government) because they'd just see noise. Guess they would also be able to do location tracking though and that's not so easily solved.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Yes, this is my understanding. But, haven't USA for Adobe history wrt "backdooring" the encryption algorithms themselves (ie private knowledge allows decryption to be made plausible [but still costly]).
tinus_hn 7y ago
The US government does not get to dictate mobile phone standards so that is irrelevant. Besides, it’s not like the US government doesn’t have its hand in the sniffing cookie jar, they don’t really want the traffic to be indecipherable.
snowwrestler 7y ago
I mean, you can do a lot with metadata. Also, I think quite a bit of telecomm traffic is encrypted by the telecomm carrier itself. For example I don't think my iPhone, by default, encrypts/decrypts SMS or voice calls on the device. To the extent text messages and mobile phone calls are resistant to dumb eavesdropping, that's provided by the mobile carrier. So having access into all the equipment at the carrier would be a nice centralized place to sit and observe/record.
ckocagil 7y ago
Governments are focusing more and more on end-to-end encryption. It can be banned within the next 5 years. They could need to manufacture some consent before that (e.g. mention e2e in the news every time a major crime is committed).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- maqp 7y ago
  Not going to happen, considering djb vs US declared code free-speech; E2EE is implemented in code so you can't ban it without violating the constitution.
freeflight 7y ago
Even end to end encryption often leaves them with metadata [0] [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-based-metadata/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-base...
- maqp 7y ago
  Which is why you'll want to use some open source onion-routed app like Briar, Ricochet, Cwtch, TFC, or Session.
  - tP5n 7y ago
    Using tor to keep your communications secret is like having ACAB tattooed on your forehead - fine if you like the attention, not exactly useful if you don't.
    - maqp 7y ago
      It is when everyone uses Tor. Nobody uses Tor: Everyone is surveilled. Few activists use Tor: Activists are easy to pick and everyone else is easy to surveill. Everyone uses Tor: Nobody can be surveilled. Nothing to gain by not using Tor, only one way to win, use Tor and tell everyone else to use Tor too. It's like the prisoner's dilemma, and not using Tor is like betraying others just in case things ever get bad.
Spooky23 7y ago
There is metadata, but you also have frequent bugs or other errata that render encryption vulnerable. A nation-state type actor can hoover up everything and retroactively decrypt.
xorcist 7y ago
There is also the risk of disrupting network operations at some unfortunate time, especially since these new networks are thought to be dominated by machine-to-machine communications.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Funny, I don't really care China spying on me as much since they just don't have any handles that would be relevant. Your own government spying on you is much more dangerous. And since I don't have influence on policies of China, I can at least hold domestic politicians that strive for more surveillance accountable. At least theoretically. History shows that government isn't your friend at all. The US might be a rare exception from time to time. But even that would be very, very limited. Doesn't mean I wouldn't mind 5G spyware from another country.

ben_w 7y ago
You might be a god-fearing clean-shaven American, but I strongly suspect the number of Americans who have secrets they can be blackmailed over is at least one percent. While I’d like to change every society so such secrets are not big issues, I don’t expect that to happen, and 3.5 million Americans being potentially blackmailed by a superpower is something I’d prefer to avoid even though I’m not an American and don’t expect to live in the USA.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  > but I strongly suspect the number of Americans who have secrets they can be blackmailed over is at least one percent. 1 %? I assume 80+ %. E v e r y o n e has secrets.
chungus_khan 7y ago
Even saying that the US is your friend isn't really true. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and MKULTRA were only ended in the 70s, Orlando Letelier happened the same decade, as did the discovery of Operation Mockingbird and other Church Committee findings. Every peek we've had into that world since then continues to come up dirty too. Operation SHAMROCK was considered a big deal at the time, but we've since then allowed American intelligence to vastly eclipse anything even conceivable at the time. Other countries programs aren't good or anything, but anyone who's deluded themselves into thinking the US is some kind of clean actor, not participating in this sort of stuff, or only using it for good is more optimistic than I could ever manage being.

fanatic2pope 7y ago

When this stuff is used against you, it is FAR more likely going to be from a domestic group hostile to a political opinion you might have. Imagine if an outfit like Cambridge Analytica had the resources of a nation state helping it collect and process information about who might support any given policy (and be given the carrot) and who might oppose it (and be given the stick). That's the scale of threat we face. While certain governments around the world are asking for mandatory back door access to encryption, rest assured they have a "plan B" for getting access to your information without it, and the 3 letter departments are front and center in those plans.

shostack 7y ago
I'm not clear if your post was implying this was the case or not, but this is an interesting, well-sourced article on the links between Cambridge Analytica and Russia [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...
- Forgivenessizer 7y ago
  It's not very important if it's paywalled. ie you wouldn't paywall what is necessary to bring about the savlation of humanity.

huaweiward 7y ago

Not because they uniquely enable the user to switch off their 2G radios and thereby defeat now trivial MITM?

thrwowman1 7y ago

Or maybe simply because the US intelligence not having a backdoor is why the're demonizing Huawei in Europe for example. That doesn't imply that Huawei does have a backdoor, simply that they'd not be able to spy anymore...

vinay427 7y ago
Not sure how that makes sense when the alternatives to Huawei proposed and supported by the US are European, primarily Ericsson and Nokia. Where is the self-interest in the US pressuring European (mostly EU) countries to use EU competitors?

AndyMcConachie 7y ago

The political squabble over 5G/Huawei is as much about western vendors using fear of China to prevent competition. Why should Cisco/Juniper/Ericsson/etc compete with Huawei when they can more easily use political pressure to exclude them from the market?

Seenso 7y ago

> Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network. Would not be fun for the U.S. to have done to them what they've done to others. Exactly. Huawei even kinda smells the same. From the OP: > As Widman settled in, the secret partners adopted a set of principles for rigged algorithms, according to the BND history. They had to be “undetectable by usual statistical tests” and, if discovered, be “easily masked as implementation or human errors.” > In other words, when cornered, Crypto executives would blame sloppy employees or clueless users. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversight_board_savaging_annual_report/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi...: > Huawei savaged by Brit code review board over pisspoor dev practices > "The work of HCSEC [Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre]… reveals serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence," said the HCSEC oversight board in its annual report, published this morning.

dontbenebby 7y ago

>Gives you a sense of why the U.S. intelligence community is so nervous about having Huawei at the core of the domestic 5G network Makes me wonder what we've done using the fact US companies (ex: Cisco) control large swathes of the internet's infrastructure.

sumedh 7y ago
> US companies (ex: Cisco) control large swathes of the internet's infrastructure. Wouldn't China/Russia make some noise if they had proof the Cisco was hiding something in their infra?
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  I thought the whole point of such things is it's near impossible to prove? Also complaining means you reveal what you know, which helps narrow what you don't know.
- modo_mario 7y ago
  I think they're pretty good at keeping it hidden and remote. It was proven the US did economic espionage on a German firm but the snowden files showed a range of other European companies also targeted. No doubt they also focus on "less friendly" targets industry, infrastructure and politics.

yumcimil 7y ago

it could be as simple as Huawei refusing to install a backdoor for them.