34 ms·

I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. It's a regular fixture in the Canadian, UK and NZ press as well. I th

by jmacd 5y ago

I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. It's a regular fixture in the Canadian, UK and NZ press as well. I think it speaks to the lobbying effort and quality of PR retained by Huawei. There are certain things that a country, or group of allies, absolutely should retain control over. Communications infrastructure is absolutely one of those things. There is a reason China and Russia both have their own GPS alternative. There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei. But equally there is no good reason to trust Huawei.

tablespoon 5y ago
> I think it speaks to the lobbying effort and quality of PR retained by Huawei. Speaking of which, Huawei ads have been all over the NYT app for the last week or so.
sithadmin 5y ago
>There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei Backdoors? Being caught red handed doing espionage? Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran?
- blitzar 5y ago
  > Backdoors? Being caught red handed doing espionage? Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran? Are we talking about Huawei here or any number of US companies?
- sofixa 5y ago
  What backdoors? Didn't the UK audit telecoms and networking equipment and say that they have shoddy security in some places ( like having telnet) but aren't worse than the shoddy security in "good" vendors like Cisco and Juniper.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    No audit is guaranteed to find a backdoor if one is present. It simply isn't possible - any more than you could get an audit guaranteeing the Linux kernel is bug-free.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      But if nobody has found any backdoors, including with an audit by a security agency, how can OP use "backdoors" as an argument against Huawei?
      - cute_boi 5y ago
        In the realm of no experts, everybody is expert.
        w7 5y ago
        Indeed. As someone somewhat familiar with "underhanded code" contests (not as a participant) and publicly known espionage norms. I'm unsure why people expect backdoors to have massive MOTD banners and not be reintroduced OpenSSL vulns from 2006 that "accidentally" got into the build process for certain releases of firmware 11 years later (this happened with the UK Huawei audit iirc). I'm also unsure why people expect specific examples of known backdoors when that in itself hurts counter espionage efforts.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran? You'll probably feel a need to shit on a flag when you realise that an allied Swiss company (ABB) sold North Korea a two nuclear power plants when Rumsfeld was on the board of directors. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-during-deal-with-north-korea/3176922 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-durin...
chubot 5y ago
Sure but what changed between the time the equipment was purchased and installed and now? It’s not like the idea of malicious hardware is new. There was probably specific information about a credible or actual threat.
3pt14159 5y ago
I'm Canadian. The reason the press focusses on it so much is that it is, thus far, the only real step that the west is taking against Chinese hegemony. It's expensive and it's real. The rest of Cold War 2.0 hasn't really started yet. A couple of Mikes, a couple of tariffs, sure, but realistically if we really snap into a true standoff with China it's going to absolutely devastate the world's total economic output and stability.
- throwaway21_ 5y ago
  That's interesting - talking about Chinese hegemony and ignoring 750 US bases worldwide and all the misery they brought all around the world - South America, SE Asia, Middle East...
  - echlebek 5y ago
    Whataboutism. Canada has little to fear from US hegemony and a lot to fear from Chinese hegemony, it's as simple as that.
    - throwaway21_ 5y ago
      Nobody cares what Canada fears or not. Simple fact is that there's no Chinese hegemony now and there won't be one in foreseeable future because there's existing hegemon that won't just give up. btw one man's whataboutism is another man's uncovering of hypocrisy.
      - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
        > btw one man's whataboutism is another man's uncovering of hypocrisy. They didn't say anything about the USA hegemony being bad just that they didn't want a Chinese one. How is that hypocrisy?
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > and ignoring 750 US bases worldwide and all the misery they brought all around the world The alternative being Russian (or rather, USSR) bases. Yeah, pretty sure citizens of the countries with bases would rather have the US as a partner rather than the alternative.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei. https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-huawei-dilemma-insecurity-and-mistrust/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-huawei-dilemma-insecurit... > The findings to these lines of inquiry proved troubling to the Intelligence Committee. The probe examined Huawei’s and ZTE’s ties to the Chinese state, including support by the Chinese government and connections to the Communist Party of China, and their work done on behalf of the Chinese military and intelligence services. For instance, Congressional investigators were concerned with the background of Mr. Ren, Huawei’s founder, who had links to the 3PLA – China’s signals intelligence division – and the Communist Party, such as serving as a member to the 12th National Congress. They did not find credible claims or evidence that the company was, in fact, an employee-owned and controlled enterprise or had an independent board of directors. > Instead, the Intelligence Committee found that the Chinese government and Communist Party exerted influence over and supported Huawei as a “national champion.” For example, Huawei admitted that an internal Party Committee existing within the company, consistent with Chinese law, but refused to discuss or describe the role, membership, or impact of this group on corporate decision-making. Huawei’s failure to provide further detailed information explaining how it is formally regulated, controlled, or otherwise managed by the Chinese government undermined, in the view of Congressional investigators, the company’s repeated assertions that it is not inappropriately influenced by the Chinese government. > Huawei also refused to provide answers to direct questions about its financing and connections with Chinese state banks, nor did it provide internal documentation or auditable financial records to evaluate its claims that any financing arrangements comply with standard practice and international trade agreements. In support, Congressional investigators cited the earlier finding of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that enterprises like Huawei rely on generous state-backed financing to make an investment project in a new market viable. To the detriment of U.S. competitors, financial subsidies from the Chinese government can enable its national champions to penetrate markets by offering products below the costs of production. > Additionally, the Intelligence Committee found that Huawei exhibited a “pattern of reckless disregard” for the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies. Congressional investigators cited Huawei’s settlement in civil litigation with Cisco, in which Huawei agreed to remove certain products from the marketplace due to violations of Cisco’s intellectual property rights. Whistleblowers – former employees of Huawei – also offered testimony that the company deliberately used the patented material of other firms. In the judgment of the Intelligence Committee, these issues with intellectual property rights raised broader concerns of Huawei’s compliance with U.S. laws in general.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
It's a combination of a couple of factors. 1) Huawei had a tech / competitive lead vis a vis western firms, so those firms have been pushing / lobbying / this narrative of distrust around Huawei. 2) Huawei has done itself NO favors by just ridiculous actions - I think not realizing they are trying to sell into a western market where some of these stunts don't come across so well. In China helping N. Korea not a big deal and makes sense, China doesn't want N Koreans flooding over border. But then I thought the claims that no assistance etc offered was silly, just say yes, for x reasons we helped y country with their telecom.
cletus 5y ago
I agree with the general sentiment of your post. There is an undeniable national security interest in maintaining control over telecommunications backbones. > There is a reason China and Russia both have their own GPS alternative. As does the EU (ie Galileo). > There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei. Here I disagree. Chinese companies are extensions of the state and tools for domestic and foreign policy to a degree that Western companies simply aren't. China's massive censorship policy doesn't exactly instill confidence in the principles of openness or independence either for either the Chinese government or the companies that enable these policies.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > to a degree that Western companies simply aren't. NSA paid RSA Security $10 million in a secret deal to use Dual_EC_DRBG as the default in the RSA BSAFE cryptography library[1] Juniper routers had an apparently deliberate Dual EC backdoor allowing VPN traffic to be decrypted.[2] I'd say that there is probably more evidence of the west putting state-level backdoors in things than there is of China doing so. (although there may be sampling bias in this!) [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9... [2]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/376.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/376.pdf
  - monetus 5y ago
    I still resent room 641a, and that is relatively tame compared to what is happening now. Sampling bias is probably present though as well. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Room_641A_exterior.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Room_641...
  - op00to 5y ago
    There’s more evidence of everything in the west because of the openness of governments compared to China. China isn’t responding to FOIA requests all that much these days.
    - 5y ago
pydry 5y ago
It's definitely about more than just national security. BT was explicitly pressured to remove "dumb" components that were thoroughly vetted after they'd started removing smart components where surveillance risk was higher. At no point was any surveillance detected on any kit. Removing it all (as opposed to just the "smart" kit) is extremely costly and if security was the real concern, not worth it. They did bug the african congress but they were invited to set everything up in that building and nobody paid attention to anything they installed. I suspect it's an attempt to wage "economic" warfare. Under WTO rules national security is a virtual get out of jail free card for protectionism. Huawei had just recently proven that China can overtake western technological capabilities in a key industry. That's the point when America flinched. It also explains why they bullied all their allies into taking out all the tech all at the same time after years of seeminglh not being concerned about their own networks (let alone their allies) and without any evidence of a breach or anything.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I personally feel it is a pro-rated cost. I completely understand in China doesn't want to add US technology to their critical infrastructure and I hope China understands the practicality of it. It's a one time sunk cost, we would have to do it at some point. We aren't waging economic warfare as this is a tiny amount of trade that happens between the USA and China, if your theory was correct we would be doing it in all industries.
- roody15 5y ago
  I think you are correct here that this is a more a economic move than national security. The truth is Huawei networks switches and routers are equal to if not are better than equivalent Cisco devices. Cisco just cannot compete at this price point IMO.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That national security concerns about Huawei equipment has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment. The issue is whether the vendor can be trusted in hypothetical scenarios in the future. If the US implements all Huawei equipment, and China sanctions the US from receiving support/updates/parts from Huawei (or worse, go to war and use it as a weapon), then the US telecommunication infrastructure is at risk.
jacknews 5y ago
Given what you say, I don't understand why you don't understand. For one, it's now quite clear that all network infrastructure has backdoors controlled by the respective producing governments. I know for fact that alcatel do, for example. Why else the strict purge against huawei; a spy can spot a spy. And I think there are quite serious implications for free and open markets in certain sectors.
pessimizer 5y ago
> I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. It's a regular fixture in the Canadian, UK and NZ press as well. I think it speaks to the lobbying effort and quality of PR retained by Huawei. I think it's the opposite. Without all of the anti-Chinese bluster, this would be seen as a simple government giveaway to privately-owned telecoms and domestic telecom equipment manufacturers. These press releases are being written by their lobbyists, not Huawei.
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
  there are for sure plenty of pro Huawei apologists on the internet. It would be absurd to let a foreign power control critical telecom infrastructure, for that reason alone the decisions to ban and replace foreign gear is merited. This isn't 'anti-chinese bluster' it's just critical thinking.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "It would be absurd to let a foreign power control critical telecom infrastructure" Have you thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? If EU starts removing US equipment, or Brazil or India? US is not seen as a 'trusted ally' outside of English-speaking nations, certainly India, etc.
    - ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
      > Have you thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? If EU starts removing US equipment, or Brazil or India? Not GP, but that's a good thing. Every country should secure their own telecoms. Resilience against spying from all sides.
topspin 5y ago
> I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. Huawei pays for "sponsored" pieces in major media outlets. Politico, Reuters, Wired and others are paid by Huawei to run puff pieces, clearly labeled as "sponsored" content. Should a sudden spasm of inner dialog cause you to wonder whether the checks getting cashed have any influence on editorial decisions related to non-sponsored news you're expected to suppress that as much as possible and also keep it to yourself. Thanks!
Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
Maybe because the US vs. Huawei war has had a noticeable impact on laypeople. I can understand why they remove network equipment and have no problem with that, but as a happy Huawei smartphone user from a non-US country, I'm still pissed that I need to change to another brand (and I don't see anything on the market that is as attractive, by far) because a foreign government decided to cripple this one. I know, in theory I could go without Google, no one is banning Huawei from selling their phones to me. In practice, that's not feasible when e.g. your everyday banking apps rely on Google services. For all intents and purposes, a foreign government has banned me from using the phones I like. Imagine how many Americans would feel if new iPhones stopped being useful due to some foreign political offensive. This is similar (Huawei was the top-selling phone brand in my country). Thus, many people are interested in this kind of news about Huawei, even if they don't understand what network hardware is.
- rchaud 5y ago
  As a consumer, the tech war made me realize how the availability of my daily digital infrastructure relies on the whims of largely unaccountable corporations and governments. I know what you mean about bank apps working only on unrooted Android devices and only with Google Play Services. It's an OS- and device specific restriction, because the desktop website does not have these limitations (besides 2FA, which is understandable). The solution for me was to wait until I have my laptop on me to do banking. But I understand that not everyone will have this ability due to the nature of their business or workflow.
thewarrior 5y ago
Is it okay for all countries in the world to do this to American companies ?
scandox 5y ago
My view is that this is part of the single most important narrative that all news media ultimately contribute to: the story of the lead up to, causes of and justification for war. We are a civilization based on sanctified violence: nowadays that sanctification comes from the news media. Just to be clear: I am not blaming the media for war. I am also not definitively "anti-war" as I don't know precisely what that means.
- kodah 5y ago
  As someone who has been in war, I think war should be reserved for very special circumstances and not driven by public opinion (positive or negative). The US does not have a framework for war that isn't somehow affected by popular opinion though. The current best-effort application is the Joint Chiefs, whom I used to trust when Mattis was involved. Whether the Joint Chiefs can continue to recruit stoics like Mattis is another matter entirely.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Public opinion doesn't drive war. Public support for war is established during the lead-up phase to war by the influence of the dominant institutions.
    - kodah 5y ago
      There are a lot of things that drive war (or withdrawal), and public opinion is just one. Media is certainly another, and maybe related.
president 5y ago
What you're saying is a common thing I hear. I have been in the China watch camp for a few years now and there are a lot of major stories that you and most others are missing if the only place you get your news is from mainstream media, most of which has been captured by Chinese government. Bloomberg, CNN, AP, Reuters all receive Chinese money and/or coercion (not allowed to have offices/journalists in China unless you do what we say) to bring pro-CCP narratives to their audience. Same goes for most other international media. Just saying.
gonational 5y ago
> communications infrastructure is absolutely one of those things So is the media. Perhaps it is not on account of the tremendous PR efforts of Huawei that American media outlets appear to be on the same team as the Chinese communist party, on many fronts.
scrubs 5y ago
I wanna know: why in the hell did American managers OK CCCP H/W in the first place? Because it cost less? Because they didn't get that "communications infrastructure is absolutely one of those things" you don't hand out to the other side? You know, we graduate a lot of business majors but sometimes I seriously wonder what in the heck American management does. In fairness there's probably blame at senior "engineering" types who OK'd purchase of Chinese stuff too.
jollybean 5y ago
If the 'trust' of an entity used for critical infrastructure is not definitive, then we 'don't trust', i.e. 'distrust by default' in those scenarios. We literally do not know who owns Huawei, legally. We know that the CCP wants to monitor all communications, everywhere, do the extent they can. We know that de facto, the CCP has the final say, and can bend Huawei at will to do as they please and interdict without consequence (see: Jack Ma). While it's obviously a much more complicated question, there are other issues for sure, but in the end, it's as easy as that. The same should be held for any bit of critical software, and legislation should be introduced to protect citizens from CCP oversight in consumer apps like TikTok. The 'smart play' would be to play into the financial incentive of the companies - most of them are 'profit first' and adhere to CCP policy mostly 'because they have to' but with maybe some degree of national loyalty in some parties. But just like Hollywood can be very easily manipulated with the threat of China-blackout into making films the way the CCP wants ... Zoom and TikTok will act reasonably with the right regulation and oversight i.e. 'All US data has to be kept in the US, in certain terms, with some regulatory process etc'.. If they are forced to keep a firewall between non-China and China users by host nations, it makes it easier for them to rebuff CCP demands for interjection i.e. "Sorry Xi, but the data is kept on servers in the US on a different business unit, if we pass data across borders they will shut us down"
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "introduced to protect citizens from CCP oversight in consumer apps like TikTok" Can we first protect citizens from Facebook, or if our companies commit crimes it's ok?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    No, because the moral ambiguity inherent implied would kind of conflate different problems. What is Facebook doing wrong? They're allowing people to share content. Some of that content, some people want censored, because they believe it has a negative influence, many (most) others would disagree. That's mostly it. If Facebook, Google, Snap, Insta were all actively sharing all of their data with the Government, so that the Government could censor any and all criticism, throw people in jail arbitrarily, use FB to track down an ethnic group of citizens and throw them in brainwashing camps with no oversight, control the entire media, and stop people from accessing information outside the USA - then I would agree with your point.
nafizh 5y ago
There is good reason to distrust Huawei. There are no private Chinese companies, everything is controlled by CCP.

by jmacd 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago

> I think it speaks to the lobbying effort and quality of PR retained by Huawei. Speaking of which, Huawei ads have been all over the NYT app for the last week or so.

sithadmin 5y ago

>There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei Backdoors? Being caught red handed doing espionage? Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran?

blitzar 5y ago
> Backdoors? Being caught red handed doing espionage? Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran? Are we talking about Huawei here or any number of US companies?
sofixa 5y ago
What backdoors? Didn't the UK audit telecoms and networking equipment and say that they have shoddy security in some places ( like having telnet) but aren't worse than the shoddy security in "good" vendors like Cisco and Juniper.
- michaelt 5y ago
  No audit is guaranteed to find a backdoor if one is present. It simply isn't possible - any more than you could get an audit guaranteeing the Linux kernel is bug-free.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But if nobody has found any backdoors, including with an audit by a security agency, how can OP use "backdoors" as an argument against Huawei?
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      In the realm of no experts, everybody is expert.
      - w7 5y ago
        Indeed. As someone somewhat familiar with "underhanded code" contests (not as a participant) and publicly known espionage norms. I'm unsure why people expect backdoors to have massive MOTD banners and not be reintroduced OpenSSL vulns from 2006 that "accidentally" got into the build process for certain releases of firmware 11 years later (this happened with the UK Huawei audit iirc). I'm also unsure why people expect specific examples of known backdoors when that in itself hurts counter espionage efforts.
throwaway210222 5y ago
> Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran? You'll probably feel a need to shit on a flag when you realise that an allied Swiss company (ABB) sold North Korea a two nuclear power plants when Rumsfeld was on the board of directors. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-during-deal-with-north-korea/3176922 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-durin...

chubot 5y ago

Sure but what changed between the time the equipment was purchased and installed and now? It’s not like the idea of malicious hardware is new. There was probably specific information about a credible or actual threat.

3pt14159 5y ago

I'm Canadian. The reason the press focusses on it so much is that it is, thus far, the only real step that the west is taking against Chinese hegemony. It's expensive and it's real. The rest of Cold War 2.0 hasn't really started yet. A couple of Mikes, a couple of tariffs, sure, but realistically if we really snap into a true standoff with China it's going to absolutely devastate the world's total economic output and stability.

throwaway21_ 5y ago
That's interesting - talking about Chinese hegemony and ignoring 750 US bases worldwide and all the misery they brought all around the world - South America, SE Asia, Middle East...
- echlebek 5y ago
  Whataboutism. Canada has little to fear from US hegemony and a lot to fear from Chinese hegemony, it's as simple as that.
  - throwaway21_ 5y ago
    Nobody cares what Canada fears or not. Simple fact is that there's no Chinese hegemony now and there won't be one in foreseeable future because there's existing hegemon that won't just give up. btw one man's whataboutism is another man's uncovering of hypocrisy.
    - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
      > btw one man's whataboutism is another man's uncovering of hypocrisy. They didn't say anything about the USA hegemony being bad just that they didn't want a Chinese one. How is that hypocrisy?
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > and ignoring 750 US bases worldwide and all the misery they brought all around the world The alternative being Russian (or rather, USSR) bases. Yeah, pretty sure citizens of the countries with bases would rather have the US as a partner rather than the alternative.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei. https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-huawei-dilemma-insecurity-and-mistrust/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-huawei-dilemma-insecurit... > The findings to these lines of inquiry proved troubling to the Intelligence Committee. The probe examined Huawei’s and ZTE’s ties to the Chinese state, including support by the Chinese government and connections to the Communist Party of China, and their work done on behalf of the Chinese military and intelligence services. For instance, Congressional investigators were concerned with the background of Mr. Ren, Huawei’s founder, who had links to the 3PLA – China’s signals intelligence division – and the Communist Party, such as serving as a member to the 12th National Congress. They did not find credible claims or evidence that the company was, in fact, an employee-owned and controlled enterprise or had an independent board of directors. > Instead, the Intelligence Committee found that the Chinese government and Communist Party exerted influence over and supported Huawei as a “national champion.” For example, Huawei admitted that an internal Party Committee existing within the company, consistent with Chinese law, but refused to discuss or describe the role, membership, or impact of this group on corporate decision-making. Huawei’s failure to provide further detailed information explaining how it is formally regulated, controlled, or otherwise managed by the Chinese government undermined, in the view of Congressional investigators, the company’s repeated assertions that it is not inappropriately influenced by the Chinese government. > Huawei also refused to provide answers to direct questions about its financing and connections with Chinese state banks, nor did it provide internal documentation or auditable financial records to evaluate its claims that any financing arrangements comply with standard practice and international trade agreements. In support, Congressional investigators cited the earlier finding of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that enterprises like Huawei rely on generous state-backed financing to make an investment project in a new market viable. To the detriment of U.S. competitors, financial subsidies from the Chinese government can enable its national champions to penetrate markets by offering products below the costs of production. > Additionally, the Intelligence Committee found that Huawei exhibited a “pattern of reckless disregard” for the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies. Congressional investigators cited Huawei’s settlement in civil litigation with Cisco, in which Huawei agreed to remove certain products from the marketplace due to violations of Cisco’s intellectual property rights. Whistleblowers – former employees of Huawei – also offered testimony that the company deliberately used the patented material of other firms. In the judgment of the Intelligence Committee, these issues with intellectual property rights raised broader concerns of Huawei’s compliance with U.S. laws in general.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

It's a combination of a couple of factors. 1) Huawei had a tech / competitive lead vis a vis western firms, so those firms have been pushing / lobbying / this narrative of distrust around Huawei. 2) Huawei has done itself NO favors by just ridiculous actions - I think not realizing they are trying to sell into a western market where some of these stunts don't come across so well. In China helping N. Korea not a big deal and makes sense, China doesn't want N Koreans flooding over border. But then I thought the claims that no assistance etc offered was silly, just say yes, for x reasons we helped y country with their telecom.

cletus 5y ago

I agree with the general sentiment of your post. There is an undeniable national security interest in maintaining control over telecommunications backbones. > There is a reason China and Russia both have their own GPS alternative. As does the EU (ie Galileo). > There is probably no good reason to distrust Huawei. Here I disagree. Chinese companies are extensions of the state and tools for domestic and foreign policy to a degree that Western companies simply aren't. China's massive censorship policy doesn't exactly instill confidence in the principles of openness or independence either for either the Chinese government or the companies that enable these policies.

londons_explore 5y ago
> to a degree that Western companies simply aren't. NSA paid RSA Security $10 million in a secret deal to use Dual_EC_DRBG as the default in the RSA BSAFE cryptography library[1] Juniper routers had an apparently deliberate Dual EC backdoor allowing VPN traffic to be decrypted.[2] I'd say that there is probably more evidence of the west putting state-level backdoors in things than there is of China doing so. (although there may be sampling bias in this!) [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9... [2]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/376.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/376.pdf
- monetus 5y ago
  I still resent room 641a, and that is relatively tame compared to what is happening now. Sampling bias is probably present though as well. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Room_641A_exterior.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Room_641...
- op00to 5y ago
  There’s more evidence of everything in the west because of the openness of governments compared to China. China isn’t responding to FOIA requests all that much these days.
  - 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

It's definitely about more than just national security. BT was explicitly pressured to remove "dumb" components that were thoroughly vetted after they'd started removing smart components where surveillance risk was higher. At no point was any surveillance detected on any kit. Removing it all (as opposed to just the "smart" kit) is extremely costly and if security was the real concern, not worth it. They did bug the african congress but they were invited to set everything up in that building and nobody paid attention to anything they installed. I suspect it's an attempt to wage "economic" warfare. Under WTO rules national security is a virtual get out of jail free card for protectionism. Huawei had just recently proven that China can overtake western technological capabilities in a key industry. That's the point when America flinched. It also explains why they bullied all their allies into taking out all the tech all at the same time after years of seeminglh not being concerned about their own networks (let alone their allies) and without any evidence of a breach or anything.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
I personally feel it is a pro-rated cost. I completely understand in China doesn't want to add US technology to their critical infrastructure and I hope China understands the practicality of it. It's a one time sunk cost, we would have to do it at some point. We aren't waging economic warfare as this is a tiny amount of trade that happens between the USA and China, if your theory was correct we would be doing it in all industries.
roody15 5y ago
I think you are correct here that this is a more a economic move than national security. The truth is Huawei networks switches and routers are equal to if not are better than equivalent Cisco devices. Cisco just cannot compete at this price point IMO.
- kube-system 5y ago
  That national security concerns about Huawei equipment has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment. The issue is whether the vendor can be trusted in hypothetical scenarios in the future. If the US implements all Huawei equipment, and China sanctions the US from receiving support/updates/parts from Huawei (or worse, go to war and use it as a weapon), then the US telecommunication infrastructure is at risk.

jacknews 5y ago

Given what you say, I don't understand why you don't understand. For one, it's now quite clear that all network infrastructure has backdoors controlled by the respective producing governments. I know for fact that alcatel do, for example. Why else the strict purge against huawei; a spy can spot a spy. And I think there are quite serious implications for free and open markets in certain sectors.

pessimizer 5y ago

> I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. It's a regular fixture in the Canadian, UK and NZ press as well. I think it speaks to the lobbying effort and quality of PR retained by Huawei. I think it's the opposite. Without all of the anti-Chinese bluster, this would be seen as a simple government giveaway to privately-owned telecoms and domestic telecom equipment manufacturers. These press releases are being written by their lobbyists, not Huawei.

throwawaygal7 5y ago
there are for sure plenty of pro Huawei apologists on the internet. It would be absurd to let a foreign power control critical telecom infrastructure, for that reason alone the decisions to ban and replace foreign gear is merited. This isn't 'anti-chinese bluster' it's just critical thinking.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "It would be absurd to let a foreign power control critical telecom infrastructure" Have you thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? If EU starts removing US equipment, or Brazil or India? US is not seen as a 'trusted ally' outside of English-speaking nations, certainly India, etc.
  - ravel-bar-foo 5y ago
    > Have you thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? If EU starts removing US equipment, or Brazil or India? Not GP, but that's a good thing. Every country should secure their own telecoms. Resilience against spying from all sides.

topspin 5y ago

> I fail to understand why the press in western countries gives this story so much air time. Huawei pays for "sponsored" pieces in major media outlets. Politico, Reuters, Wired and others are paid by Huawei to run puff pieces, clearly labeled as "sponsored" content. Should a sudden spasm of inner dialog cause you to wonder whether the checks getting cashed have any influence on editorial decisions related to non-sponsored news you're expected to suppress that as much as possible and also keep it to yourself. Thanks!

Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago

Maybe because the US vs. Huawei war has had a noticeable impact on laypeople. I can understand why they remove network equipment and have no problem with that, but as a happy Huawei smartphone user from a non-US country, I'm still pissed that I need to change to another brand (and I don't see anything on the market that is as attractive, by far) because a foreign government decided to cripple this one. I know, in theory I could go without Google, no one is banning Huawei from selling their phones to me. In practice, that's not feasible when e.g. your everyday banking apps rely on Google services. For all intents and purposes, a foreign government has banned me from using the phones I like. Imagine how many Americans would feel if new iPhones stopped being useful due to some foreign political offensive. This is similar (Huawei was the top-selling phone brand in my country). Thus, many people are interested in this kind of news about Huawei, even if they don't understand what network hardware is.

rchaud 5y ago
As a consumer, the tech war made me realize how the availability of my daily digital infrastructure relies on the whims of largely unaccountable corporations and governments. I know what you mean about bank apps working only on unrooted Android devices and only with Google Play Services. It's an OS- and device specific restriction, because the desktop website does not have these limitations (besides 2FA, which is understandable). The solution for me was to wait until I have my laptop on me to do banking. But I understand that not everyone will have this ability due to the nature of their business or workflow.

thewarrior 5y ago

Is it okay for all countries in the world to do this to American companies ?

scandox 5y ago

My view is that this is part of the single most important narrative that all news media ultimately contribute to: the story of the lead up to, causes of and justification for war. We are a civilization based on sanctified violence: nowadays that sanctification comes from the news media. Just to be clear: I am not blaming the media for war. I am also not definitively "anti-war" as I don't know precisely what that means.

kodah 5y ago
As someone who has been in war, I think war should be reserved for very special circumstances and not driven by public opinion (positive or negative). The US does not have a framework for war that isn't somehow affected by popular opinion though. The current best-effort application is the Joint Chiefs, whom I used to trust when Mattis was involved. Whether the Joint Chiefs can continue to recruit stoics like Mattis is another matter entirely.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Public opinion doesn't drive war. Public support for war is established during the lead-up phase to war by the influence of the dominant institutions.
  - kodah 5y ago
    There are a lot of things that drive war (or withdrawal), and public opinion is just one. Media is certainly another, and maybe related.

president 5y ago

What you're saying is a common thing I hear. I have been in the China watch camp for a few years now and there are a lot of major stories that you and most others are missing if the only place you get your news is from mainstream media, most of which has been captured by Chinese government. Bloomberg, CNN, AP, Reuters all receive Chinese money and/or coercion (not allowed to have offices/journalists in China unless you do what we say) to bring pro-CCP narratives to their audience. Same goes for most other international media. Just saying.

gonational 5y ago

> communications infrastructure is absolutely one of those things So is the media. Perhaps it is not on account of the tremendous PR efforts of Huawei that American media outlets appear to be on the same team as the Chinese communist party, on many fronts.

scrubs 5y ago

I wanna know: why in the hell did American managers OK CCCP H/W in the first place? Because it cost less? Because they didn't get that "communications infrastructure is absolutely one of those things" you don't hand out to the other side? You know, we graduate a lot of business majors but sometimes I seriously wonder what in the heck American management does. In fairness there's probably blame at senior "engineering" types who OK'd purchase of Chinese stuff too.

jollybean 5y ago

If the 'trust' of an entity used for critical infrastructure is not definitive, then we 'don't trust', i.e. 'distrust by default' in those scenarios. We literally do not know who owns Huawei, legally. We know that the CCP wants to monitor all communications, everywhere, do the extent they can. We know that de facto, the CCP has the final say, and can bend Huawei at will to do as they please and interdict without consequence (see: Jack Ma). While it's obviously a much more complicated question, there are other issues for sure, but in the end, it's as easy as that. The same should be held for any bit of critical software, and legislation should be introduced to protect citizens from CCP oversight in consumer apps like TikTok. The 'smart play' would be to play into the financial incentive of the companies - most of them are 'profit first' and adhere to CCP policy mostly 'because they have to' but with maybe some degree of national loyalty in some parties. But just like Hollywood can be very easily manipulated with the threat of China-blackout into making films the way the CCP wants ... Zoom and TikTok will act reasonably with the right regulation and oversight i.e. 'All US data has to be kept in the US, in certain terms, with some regulatory process etc'.. If they are forced to keep a firewall between non-China and China users by host nations, it makes it easier for them to rebuff CCP demands for interjection i.e. "Sorry Xi, but the data is kept on servers in the US on a different business unit, if we pass data across borders they will shut us down"

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"introduced to protect citizens from CCP oversight in consumer apps like TikTok" Can we first protect citizens from Facebook, or if our companies commit crimes it's ok?
- jollybean 5y ago
  No, because the moral ambiguity inherent implied would kind of conflate different problems. What is Facebook doing wrong? They're allowing people to share content. Some of that content, some people want censored, because they believe it has a negative influence, many (most) others would disagree. That's mostly it. If Facebook, Google, Snap, Insta were all actively sharing all of their data with the Government, so that the Government could censor any and all criticism, throw people in jail arbitrarily, use FB to track down an ethnic group of citizens and throw them in brainwashing camps with no oversight, control the entire media, and stop people from accessing information outside the USA - then I would agree with your point.

nafizh 5y ago

There is good reason to distrust Huawei. There are no private Chinese companies, everything is controlled by CCP.