4 ms·

To understand better what's going on, you need to check https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/

by chx 7y ago

To understand better what's going on, you need to check https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/USCIB-508.p... and https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-09-30-itu-t-tsag-ietf-iab-ls-on-new-ip-shaping-future-network-attachment-2.docx https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2019-0... and then you will understand what's this about: China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. > Source: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (China), China Mobile Communications Corporation, China Unicom, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) > Title: “New IP, Shaping Future Network”: Propose to initiate the discussion of strategy transformation for ITU-T The US Council For International Business answers: > In recent years, however, the T-Sector’s workstream has expanded into areas in which we do not believe the ITU has the expertise or mandate > In general, we urge the U.S. Government to [...] advocate against Resolutions that would [...] broaden the scope of the ITU’s consideration of such technologies into domains such as ethics, R&D, and/or human rights.; Reading the spin at https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/16648964/itu-opens-new-channels-of-communication https://www.lightwaveonline.com/optical-tech/article/1664896... I am not sure how far fetched would it be to say that China is bribing the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group so eventually it can shake off the US yoke on such standards. Because this spiel basically casts the US in bad light and very diligently omits even the mention of China. As https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-14540-8_... mentions "according to many observers, economic globalisation and the liberalisation of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States" although this paper argues against the hegemonic U.S. control of the internet, there can be little doubt China would love to strip away that control be it hegemonic or not.

eqvinox 7y ago
> China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. No. Chinese companies are trying to get recognized and running headfirst into a brick wall. Designing a new internet is counterproductive to Chinese international sales of telco equipment and therefore also to building Chinese influence. And as far as domestic internet is concerned, they have a pretty firm handle on that already, without designing a new one.
- eqvinox 7y ago
  P.S.: Another angle to view this from is to consider this a startup. In US & EU, dumb ideas occasionally turn into startups, then they show up on crowdfunding (or, worst case, find a dumb VC), and then they die in a fire of varying gloriousness. In China, the startup happens inside of Huawei instead. The ideas are equally dumb, but they don't die as easily, and when they make it out of Huawei they suddenly have the Huawei name attached and the Chinese government behind it. And it falls to the ITU, IETF, IEEE, or whomever else to shut it down. Don't get confused by the "Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT)" there either. This isn't "state driven." They're just different faces of the same large blob. And it's not about subversion either. They can't do that, yet. If you buy Cisco, Juniper, Ericsson, or Alcatel, and you find a backdoor... you just add it to the list of backdoors. But if you find a backdoor in Huawei, can you imagine the shitstorm that's gonna break loose? They seriously can't afford that. They'd lose not only US & EU sales and influence, but Middle East, African and South American too. They can start doing that in 10 years maybe, but not yet.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > If you buy Cisco, Juniper, Ericsson, or Alcatel, and you find a backdoor... you just add it to the list of backdoors. But if you find a backdoor in Huawei, can you imagine the shitstorm that's gonna break loose? There is a saying I ran across at some point: * The newspapers lie. The government lies. But in a democracy they are not the same lies. The "problem" with any Chinese company is that this distinction is often hard to make, whereas in Western countries there is much more independence (though not perfect, e.g., RSA and Dual_EC_DRBG). So when there is a backdoor-like situation in a product from a Western company it is not unreasonable to assume that it is not for nefarious purposes.
    - eqvinox 7y ago
      > So when there is a backdoor-like situation in a product from a Western company it is not unreasonable to assume that it is not for nefarious purposes. This perception is exactly why you will get backdoors from Western intelligence services in Western gear, but the Chinese can't pull it off. It's straight up cognitive dissonance. Western companies are the good guys. Western intelligence services are the good guys. They wouldn't harm "us" Westerners, it's gonna be OK... and the manufacturer will keep the intelligence services in check! We know since Snowden that they broke all the rules, but still, c'mon, it's not that bad, aight? But if you find a single thing in a Huawei device that looks remotely like a backdoor, hell breaks loose. Of course the Chinese state is behind it! You can't trust them. And: > it is not for nefarious purposes. Please tell me what on earth that purpose would be, for a company to backdoor their own commercial product. Why the f.ck would Cisco or Juniper want to backdoor their customer's networks for their own purposes? Their intent is to sell shit and "create value"! Backdooring your products does nothing to get either of these, but it can very much trash a whole product line. It's sad, but social signaling and valuation causes its exact opposite in this case. Edward Snowden's achievement wasn't revealing that NSA backdoors exist - people knew that before, but it was "tinfoil hat" country. Now it's common accepted knowledge. Unfortunately, that knowledge hasn't led to change just yet...
fulafel 7y ago
What's abuse about proposing new telecom standards through an telecom standardization org?
- temac 7y ago
  Yeah, and the reaction of the IETF is really weird. They feel threatened. And they would not feel threatened if the project was pure garbage. And their points are weak. This is basically: this is OUR standard and WE are in charge of this part of the world now, don't you dare try to develop something else/better/an evolution. If I was working on this, I would simply rename it to something other than IP, and be done with the drama.
- wmf 7y ago
  IETF has jurisdiction over Internet standards and ITU has telephones. Any kind of "new IP" falls under IETF but they won't approve any such thing so people take their proposals to ITU.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    IETF does protocols and engineering, not internet governance. Specifying internetworking protocols is not a monopoly. I'm no more enthusiastic about nation state involvement in internet governance than tje averagw HNer but putting out specs shouldn't be policed too much.

by chx 7y ago

eqvinox 7y ago

> China wants to abuse the ITU-T to design a new Internet. No. Chinese companies are trying to get recognized and running headfirst into a brick wall. Designing a new internet is counterproductive to Chinese international sales of telco equipment and therefore also to building Chinese influence. And as far as domestic internet is concerned, they have a pretty firm handle on that already, without designing a new one.

eqvinox 7y ago
P.S.: Another angle to view this from is to consider this a startup. In US & EU, dumb ideas occasionally turn into startups, then they show up on crowdfunding (or, worst case, find a dumb VC), and then they die in a fire of varying gloriousness. In China, the startup happens inside of Huawei instead. The ideas are equally dumb, but they don't die as easily, and when they make it out of Huawei they suddenly have the Huawei name attached and the Chinese government behind it. And it falls to the ITU, IETF, IEEE, or whomever else to shut it down. Don't get confused by the "Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT)" there either. This isn't "state driven." They're just different faces of the same large blob. And it's not about subversion either. They can't do that, yet. If you buy Cisco, Juniper, Ericsson, or Alcatel, and you find a backdoor... you just add it to the list of backdoors. But if you find a backdoor in Huawei, can you imagine the shitstorm that's gonna break loose? They seriously can't afford that. They'd lose not only US & EU sales and influence, but Middle East, African and South American too. They can start doing that in 10 years maybe, but not yet.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > If you buy Cisco, Juniper, Ericsson, or Alcatel, and you find a backdoor... you just add it to the list of backdoors. But if you find a backdoor in Huawei, can you imagine the shitstorm that's gonna break loose? There is a saying I ran across at some point: * The newspapers lie. The government lies. But in a democracy they are not the same lies. The "problem" with any Chinese company is that this distinction is often hard to make, whereas in Western countries there is much more independence (though not perfect, e.g., RSA and Dual_EC_DRBG). So when there is a backdoor-like situation in a product from a Western company it is not unreasonable to assume that it is not for nefarious purposes.
  - eqvinox 7y ago
    > So when there is a backdoor-like situation in a product from a Western company it is not unreasonable to assume that it is not for nefarious purposes. This perception is exactly why you will get backdoors from Western intelligence services in Western gear, but the Chinese can't pull it off. It's straight up cognitive dissonance. Western companies are the good guys. Western intelligence services are the good guys. They wouldn't harm "us" Westerners, it's gonna be OK... and the manufacturer will keep the intelligence services in check! We know since Snowden that they broke all the rules, but still, c'mon, it's not that bad, aight? But if you find a single thing in a Huawei device that looks remotely like a backdoor, hell breaks loose. Of course the Chinese state is behind it! You can't trust them. And: > it is not for nefarious purposes. Please tell me what on earth that purpose would be, for a company to backdoor their own commercial product. Why the f.ck would Cisco or Juniper want to backdoor their customer's networks for their own purposes? Their intent is to sell shit and "create value"! Backdooring your products does nothing to get either of these, but it can very much trash a whole product line. It's sad, but social signaling and valuation causes its exact opposite in this case. Edward Snowden's achievement wasn't revealing that NSA backdoors exist - people knew that before, but it was "tinfoil hat" country. Now it's common accepted knowledge. Unfortunately, that knowledge hasn't led to change just yet...

fulafel 7y ago

What's abuse about proposing new telecom standards through an telecom standardization org?

temac 7y ago
Yeah, and the reaction of the IETF is really weird. They feel threatened. And they would not feel threatened if the project was pure garbage. And their points are weak. This is basically: this is OUR standard and WE are in charge of this part of the world now, don't you dare try to develop something else/better/an evolution. If I was working on this, I would simply rename it to something other than IP, and be done with the drama.
wmf 7y ago
IETF has jurisdiction over Internet standards and ITU has telephones. Any kind of "new IP" falls under IETF but they won't approve any such thing so people take their proposals to ITU.
- fulafel 7y ago
  IETF does protocols and engineering, not internet governance. Specifying internetworking protocols is not a monopoly. I'm no more enthusiastic about nation state involvement in internet governance than tje averagw HNer but putting out specs shouldn't be policed too much.