7 ms·
> Now, obviously telco equipment can be used for spying, but there's absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing here at all. That's incorrect. The report made by C
by jsiepkes 6y ago
> Now, obviously telco equipment can be used for spying, but there's absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing here at all.
That's incorrect. The report made by Capgemini stated that there were clear boundaries as to what Huawei was allowed to access but they violated those boundaries. Apparently also a list of numbers under surveillance by Dutch intelligence was found in possession of Huawei. Which was clearly well beyond those boundaries.
Just like a sysadmin can read the mail of the boss doesn't mean your allowed to.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoThough I can't read the actual report, this article does not support your claims. >Apparently also a list of numbers under surveillance by Dutch intelligence was found in possession of Huawei. Which was clearly well beyond those boundaries Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access?
- AlphaSite 6y agoIt could be done at arms length through an API. Then it would become an issue of reading data they shouldn’t be.
- Joker_vD 6y agoUnless people inventing such API thought that the domestic telco equipment will be operated by foregin companies. And I somehow suspect they've thought exactly the opposite: that they can rely on domestic providers be domestic firms, easily supervised by the domestic law enforcement agencies.
- hansjorg 6y agoCould also be possession of database with intent to select.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoWouldn't that API then just give someone else (presumably the intelligence agency) unrestrained access to all phone lines? Someone outside should be responsible for providing access, you can argue Huawei shouldn't have been chosen but I find it hard to blame them for doing their job.
- Ironlink 6y agoThe article says: > The company gained unauthorized access to the heart of the mobile network from China. ... but then, in the very next sentence: > How often that happened is not clear because it was not recorded anywhere. This wording is a bit unclear. The first sentence states as a matter of fact that there was unauthorized access, while the second states that there are no records.
- hn8788 6y agoIt might mean not officially recorded anywhere, like an intelligence agency gave them a heads up about it, but the network admins at the company didn't see anything with their monitoring software.
- toyg 6y agoOr the admins saw it once and then revoked privileges - you know it happened at least once and probably more, but you don't know how many more.
- namenotrequired 6y agoI read it as meaning they had access (i.e. they could access it), but we don't know if they did access it.
- inopinatus 6y agoYou'd be better advised to read it as: journalists have no idea what they're describing, and mash together words without nuanced regard to what the facts may be. c.f. the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
- kube-system 6y agoThat is not conflicting. "did they" and "how often" are two different questions. Metadata can and often does indicate the fact that something was accessed but not how often. For example, the "last modified" user/timestamp on a file.
- 6y ago
- crote 6y agoThe original source[0] definitely supports those claims. "Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden" which translates to "Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" > Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access? No. That data should only be on a server within the KPN network. Huawei employees had an office in a KPN building. There is no need for that data to ever leave that network. [0]: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle-gesprekken-van-mobiele-kpn-klanten-afluisteren-inclusief-die-van-de-premier~bd1aece1/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" That does not state Huawei is responsible for that event, it could be the security testing team.
- NicoJuicy 6y agoHackers could always claim they were security testing :) If that would have been the case, it would have been the first thing they'd mention though.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIt was? Those words came from the report done by the security testing team.
- NicoJuicy 6y agoCopy the lines + link that state that please. That's not my observation. Note: i'm a native dutch speaker. So no translation required.
- 6y ago