4 ms·

Reminder: US intelligence lies. They are not unique in this but it's worth repeating. They might be right about Huawei or they might not, either way saying "we

Reminder: US intelligence lies. They are not unique in this but it's worth repeating. They might be right about Huawei or they might not, either way saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless.

ASalazarMX 7y ago
If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  c. They have sources saying as such but have not discovered the backdoor itself. d. Admitting how they found the backdoor would reveal other issues (a source in the pipeline, or their own backdoor in something Huawei made use of). And probably e-z too.
  - LoveKebab 7y ago
    Yeah exactly - providing proof publicly could in fact burn the sources/methods used to get that proof.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Hey, I like this game .... e. they know Huawei have backdoor(s) because their mole put them in, so the USA could use them. They've not succeeded in getting a backdoor in 5G infrastructure, so they're ready to burn the old backdoor, to discredit Huawei (and win big on the markets) and to get countries to take USA based products on which there are backdoors in! What we can be pretty sure of, as Trump's involved in pressuring countries to stop using Huawei, it's corrupt and there's a private financial win for Trump if he succeeds.
    - throwaway17_17 7y ago
      I wouldn't say your 'e' is at tin-foil hat level. But your assertion that since Trump is president any attempt to establish that Huawei is flawed from a security perspective is some 'corrupt' plot by Trump to benefit him financially is pure political imagination. Go ahead and take issues with Trump, his policies, his words, his actions, I don't care, but please do not pretend like just because Trump is president that magically the PRC and companies which are essentially controlled by its government are some kind of benign actors. Trump and has taken a hard-line against anything China since he ran in 2015, his anti-Huawei is very much in line with that stance. Also, Trump was pretty clear he wanted an American first economic policy, which makes it obvious he would be anti-expansion of any Chinese technological products. TR;DL Trump being president has not a thing to do with whether or not Huawei and the PRC are attempting to infiltrate the network and data infrastructure of the world at large.
- the_duke 7y ago
  Alternatives: - Revealing how the backdoor works would show methods the US agencies are also using. - There are multiple backdoors, or there might be, and they don't want to tip their hand.
- jariel 7y ago
  "If they had proof they would have showed it already. " A) They did show 'proof' ostensibly, to the specific agencies of interest i.e. UK/Germany. B) Your 'a' and 'b' are missing the most important point, in that the revelation of their knowledge may compromise some ongoing intelligence program. The information may very well have been provided by spies who'd be put at risk. Literally yesterday WaPo published a story on the most comprehensive US intelligence program ever and it quite nicely illustrated the challenges of how to reveal how much you know, and the consequences therein. This is not 'open source land' where we like complete transparency, it's a different game. C) There's also another issue, and that this may not be 'black and white'. For example, the ostensible 'back door' may not be clear cut: it may be that it doesn't yet exist, but there are elements in the design prepared for backdoors to be very easily added at a later date.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    When was this? Just because in around Nov 2019 a GCHQ spokesman said Chinese backdoors went an issue with UK's dependency on Huawei for 5G (but other risks, network shutdown in times of conflict might be present). Could you (or anyone) link a source where the NSA, or other USA agencies discuss this with technical detail?
- chmod775 7y ago
  Considering their history of outright lies I'm betting on a).
jariel 7y ago
" saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless." They've provided ostensible 'proof' to the authorities in Germany and the UK who are the entities they are trying to convince of the issue, which is reasonable. We'll have to wait to see how the Europeans respond.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. In any case, my point is not that they aren't plausible reasons why they might not make any proof public. My point is that they aren't above using those plausible reasons to propagate disinformation. So their statements are meaningless to us (the public) because it's impossible to discern truth from lies without further information.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    > The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. The British badly need to negotiate pst-Brexit trade deals with all major powers. Pissing off the CCP before the negotiations won’t help the UK’s plans.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Nor will pissing off USA, which presumably is why they timed the issue carefully when any failure in trade will make the biggest mark on the public view of post-Brexit trade potential. Like 'you know how your mobile phone system works quite well, let us help ruin that for you by messing with it politically', great.
  - danbruc 7y ago
    As far as I know Germany also did not exclude Huawei from 5G projects in general. Maybe they have a really good understanding where and where not working with Huawei poses a serious risk, maybe the provided evidence was not convincing, maybe they just don't care.

ASalazarMX 7y ago

If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
c. They have sources saying as such but have not discovered the backdoor itself. d. Admitting how they found the backdoor would reveal other issues (a source in the pipeline, or their own backdoor in something Huawei made use of). And probably e-z too.
- LoveKebab 7y ago
  Yeah exactly - providing proof publicly could in fact burn the sources/methods used to get that proof.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Hey, I like this game .... e. they know Huawei have backdoor(s) because their mole put them in, so the USA could use them. They've not succeeded in getting a backdoor in 5G infrastructure, so they're ready to burn the old backdoor, to discredit Huawei (and win big on the markets) and to get countries to take USA based products on which there are backdoors in! What we can be pretty sure of, as Trump's involved in pressuring countries to stop using Huawei, it's corrupt and there's a private financial win for Trump if he succeeds.
  - throwaway17_17 7y ago
    I wouldn't say your 'e' is at tin-foil hat level. But your assertion that since Trump is president any attempt to establish that Huawei is flawed from a security perspective is some 'corrupt' plot by Trump to benefit him financially is pure political imagination. Go ahead and take issues with Trump, his policies, his words, his actions, I don't care, but please do not pretend like just because Trump is president that magically the PRC and companies which are essentially controlled by its government are some kind of benign actors. Trump and has taken a hard-line against anything China since he ran in 2015, his anti-Huawei is very much in line with that stance. Also, Trump was pretty clear he wanted an American first economic policy, which makes it obvious he would be anti-expansion of any Chinese technological products. TR;DL Trump being president has not a thing to do with whether or not Huawei and the PRC are attempting to infiltrate the network and data infrastructure of the world at large.
the_duke 7y ago
Alternatives: - Revealing how the backdoor works would show methods the US agencies are also using. - There are multiple backdoors, or there might be, and they don't want to tip their hand.
jariel 7y ago
"If they had proof they would have showed it already. " A) They did show 'proof' ostensibly, to the specific agencies of interest i.e. UK/Germany. B) Your 'a' and 'b' are missing the most important point, in that the revelation of their knowledge may compromise some ongoing intelligence program. The information may very well have been provided by spies who'd be put at risk. Literally yesterday WaPo published a story on the most comprehensive US intelligence program ever and it quite nicely illustrated the challenges of how to reveal how much you know, and the consequences therein. This is not 'open source land' where we like complete transparency, it's a different game. C) There's also another issue, and that this may not be 'black and white'. For example, the ostensible 'back door' may not be clear cut: it may be that it doesn't yet exist, but there are elements in the design prepared for backdoors to be very easily added at a later date.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  When was this? Just because in around Nov 2019 a GCHQ spokesman said Chinese backdoors went an issue with UK's dependency on Huawei for 5G (but other risks, network shutdown in times of conflict might be present). Could you (or anyone) link a source where the NSA, or other USA agencies discuss this with technical detail?
chmod775 7y ago
Considering their history of outright lies I'm betting on a).

jariel 7y ago

" saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless." They've provided ostensible 'proof' to the authorities in Germany and the UK who are the entities they are trying to convince of the issue, which is reasonable. We'll have to wait to see how the Europeans respond.

ChrisSD 7y ago
The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. In any case, my point is not that they aren't plausible reasons why they might not make any proof public. My point is that they aren't above using those plausible reasons to propagate disinformation. So their statements are meaningless to us (the public) because it's impossible to discern truth from lies without further information.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  > The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. The British badly need to negotiate pst-Brexit trade deals with all major powers. Pissing off the CCP before the negotiations won’t help the UK’s plans.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Nor will pissing off USA, which presumably is why they timed the issue carefully when any failure in trade will make the biggest mark on the public view of post-Brexit trade potential. Like 'you know how your mobile phone system works quite well, let us help ruin that for you by messing with it politically', great.
- danbruc 7y ago
  As far as I know Germany also did not exclude Huawei from 5G projects in general. Maybe they have a really good understanding where and where not working with Huawei poses a serious risk, maybe the provided evidence was not convincing, maybe they just don't care.