9 ms·

FBI investigation determined Huawei equipment could disrupt US nuclear comms

211 points by tusslewake 4y ago

tusslewake 4y ago
yazzku 4y ago
yellow_lead 4y ago
> According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the FBI determined the equipment was capable of capturing and disrupting highly restricted Defense Department communications, including those used by US Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear weapons. If you write that they could capture these communications, it sounds like they could be read. But these comms must be encrypted, right? This story is a bit clickbaity - by that standard, some hobbyist with an antenna can "capture" DoD comms. And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
- MrPatan 4y ago
  Exactly, so why would you place devices made by your adversaries all over the place, where they can disrupt your comms?
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  It's like getting several spooks to say your network card could intercept or disrupt all your internet traffic. It's making the equipment's purpose sound scary.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver. Amateurs aren't running around the country placing transmitters near all the government comms. Also there's many types of encryption (onion routing for example) that depend on being able to intercept communications at multiple locations. Also there's still metadata that can be learned even without being able to read the comms directly, for example who's broadcasting at any moment. Even amateurs were able to figure out when Russia was launching missiles at Ukraine even from their encrypted comms, if you have a more advanced surveillance system in-country you can learn a lot more.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> shut down a high-profile regional consulate believed by the US government to be a hotbed of Chinese spies Every consulate - Chinese, American, you name it - is a hotbed of spies. The closure of the Houston consulate was just a political move by the Trump administration.
- LMYahooTFY 4y ago
  What you're casually dismissing as "just a political move" seemed to be a very well understood target which required state department cooperation to act against. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/chinas-foreign-technology-wish-list/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/chinas-foreign-techn... > HOUSTON AS A GLOBAL S&T HUB Before its closure in the summer of 2020, the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas was a major hub in China’s global S&T information gathering operation. From January 2015 to July 2020, Houston Consulate staff identified more S&T projects than any other PRC diplomatic post in the world, and referred 89 percent of the projects originating from the United States.56 During that time, the United States was the largest source of information technology projects targeted by Chinese S&T diplomats.57 From 2017 to 2019, the Houston Consulate cosponsored a series of “matchmaking” events with several Chinese technology transfer centers, attracting approximately three hundred U.S. businesses each year.58 Since the consulate’s closure in July 2020, the MOST bulletin of “international technical cooperation opportunities” has registered only one additional project from the United States, a virtual reality therapy company in Massachusetts.59
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    Houston is not a particularly important science and technology hub in the US. The idea that Houston would be the most important focus of Chinese industrial espionage is non-sensical. > From 2017 to 2019, the Houston Consulate cosponsored a series of “matchmaking” events with several Chinese technology transfer centers, attracting approximately three hundred U.S. businesses each year. This is a very good example of how completely normal diplomatic activity is being cast as somehow malign. The Chinese government seeks foreign investment. Part of that involves the type of public events this passage is describing, in which the government invites a bunch of companies to a trade fair and pitches the idea of investing in China. The US does this abroad. Pretty much everyone does. This document is trying to blur the line between espionage and normal diplomatic activity. There is actual espionage that occurs out of embassies and consulates around the world. This isn't it.
hunglee2 4y ago
every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack - clearly anything foreign made is a higher security risk than one that is domestically made. Imagine an adversary being able to remotely trigger a nuclear war by issuing commands to a router
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack - clearly anything foreign made is a higher security risk than one that is domestically made. Imagine an adversary being able to remotely trigger a nuclear war by issuing commands to a router You're weirdly implying every country is an adversary of every other. There's no good reason for "every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack," but it is reasonable for them to only source equipment from ideologically-aligned natural allies.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    huge risk to rely on any other country though, friends today may become enemies tomorrow. Have we already forgotten that US dropped atomic weapons on Japan yet are now fast allies or that US supported the Islamic fundamentalism in Afganistan before now becoming enemies. US + Saddam bosom buddies in the Iran vs Iraq war. The sample size is not exactly small.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > huge risk to rely on any other country though, friends today may become enemies tomorrow. Real life isn't some RTS game. If a flip like that happens, it won't happen very quickly. Also autarky isn't even possible for most countries, and is probably a weakness for most of those that could pull it off. > Have we already forgotten that US dropped atomic weapons on Japan yet are now fast allies... That's an example of an enemy becoming an ally, so not exactly relevant. > or that US supported the Islamic fundamentalism in Afganistan before now becoming enemies. US + Saddam bosom buddies in the Iran vs Iraq war. Those are allies of geopolitical necessity, not "ideologically-aligned natural allies." For the latter, I'm thinking of things like NATO (maybe sans a couple of members) and "the Anglosphere."
Johnmelodyme 4y ago
Oh....
roenxi 4y ago
US nuclear comms is, without exaggeration, one of the highest risks to every life on the entire planet. I'd be surprised if it was just the Chinese. It is unfortunate but the situation with Huawei is a matter of great FUD. On the one hand, they probably are dodgy as any organisation & in league with the People's Liberation Army. The major risk they pose is doing precisely what the the US is doing with their spy network and the risks of that are well understood. But on the other hand, while this may be a real story, but it is just one thread of a bigger story where the Asia keeps challenging the US's high-tech edge. CNN + the FBI is not a combination known for fair, honest and reasonable journalism and this could well just be stirring up muck, trying to discredit a superior Chinese solution.
- saltman696 4y ago
- beebeepka 4y ago
  - FreqSep 4y ago
    Saddam Hussein did quite a bit more then just “challenge the bully”… I suppose genocide of the Kurds is acceptable on the internet as long as your suitably anti-American while you do it. Those darn American imperialists!
    - beebeepka 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - FreqSep 4y ago
        > I also checked your account and it's nothing but right wing propaganda. Damn, dude That’s odd, as I generally vote Democrat and the only post here I’ve submitted is to a math blog post I enjoy. At any rate, let’s try to avoid having this website turn into yet another Reddit or Twitter in terms of quality of comments and obsession about anything seen as not left leaning enough. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the merits of Saddam Hussein, here. Have a good weekend.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
Construction materials in diplomatic pouches… understandable for an embassy, but for a non-diplomatic building abroad? What in the world were they trying to build with? US customs isn’t going to hold up any properly labeled containers of building materials, especially if the Chinese embassy asks the state department for help. (I get that “pouch” can mean shipping container)
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> multiple sources familiar with the investigation tell CNN that there's no question the Huawei equipment has the ability to intercept not only commercial cell traffic but also the highly restricted airwaves used by the military I am a bit out of date on the latest designs, but presumably antenna resonance, array phase (directionality) and radio spectrum are all controllable with software now. Any or all of these could be modified remotely and changed back to civilian cell parameters again in a matter of seconds. Additionally the firmware, and hence general capabilities, can be remotely updated. Hence, one can no longer look at a device like a modern radio cell and say "this is designed to work in such a way". If you impounded it, took it to a lab, what you'd see on the bench may have no relation to how it operated a few days ago. Given also that traffic to and from the device may be encrypted all the way back to Beijing, the operation of the devices cannot be attested even in principle. This is a serious general problem in modern security - one of unfalsifiability and plasticity of form and function. It applies as much to Windows and Apple computers as to Huawei. Unless we quickly reverse the trend toward vendor-trust models that give over total control to unverifiable remote entities we're all going to be seriously screwed soon. This is going to play out in the Intel microcode debacle, in Apple's iron control over devices in the face of EU interoperability edicts, and on many more fronts... And last I checked, our clinically insane UK government still hasn't fully buried the idea the Chinese might build us a nuclear power station over here!
- godmode2019 4y ago
  That was the same argument anti 5g people used for 5g arrays, they suggested the normal operation is safe but they can be turned up or focused on targets using software.
  - LeonTheremin 4y ago
    Microwave attacks with covert tech have been happening since 1G in the 80s thanks to Silicon Trojans. The 5G crowd just didn't research fully. They are still right.
    - hammock 4y ago
gurumeditations 4y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
lizardactivist 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Pakdef 4y ago
  Because HN tend to be on the left, like CNN.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    I'm right-leaning but CNN is not universally bad. You should be paying attention to who the writer is more than what platform it's published on. Full hatred of one news website versus another is as absurd as complete allegiance to a single political party no matter what they do. Fox News and CNN are both legitimate news sites. Also since when is being anti-China a US political party issue? Last I checked it was one of the few things with broad agreement among US political parties.
    - Pakdef 4y ago
      > Fox News and CNN are both legitimate news sites. I avoid both.
    - 1over137 4y ago
  - closewith 4y ago
    This seems like an absurd claim to me (as a Western European social democrat). The comments on Hacker News skew very far to the right on everything from fiscal policy to taxation to gun rights to employment rights to unions to data protection to corporate regulation. The only areas where HN could be considered centrist is the hot-button social issues in the States like LGBT+ or abortion rights. Certainly not left-leaning, anyway.
    - 4y ago
tester756 4y ago
>Critics see xenophobic overreach huh, that's why security is hard. Everything is fine until it isn't, the war starts and reality checks comes in.
rob_c 4y ago
Wait, I thought this was orange man racist? https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/business/huawei-trade-war/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/business/huawei-trade-war/ind... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/business/huawei-apple-china-tech-us/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/business/huawei-apple-china-t...
ethagknight 4y ago
I guess a city-wide network of cell towers could surreptitiously function as a phased array missile detection and air traffic radar too? The resolution but deep across enemy lines.
juanani 4y ago
kjellsbells 4y ago
I have to ask a dumb question here. Lets say that a piece of equipment was installed, with a secret backdoor chip to send data to another country. Surely the unexpected network flow would be detected outbound and investigated? I mean, if my firewall detects outbound traffic to weirdness.com, its going to stop it and alert, because weirdness is not in the predefined envelope of expected places to send things to. I feel I must be missing something big.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  Exfiltration can be masked in any channel with a signal. So the exfiltration can be hard to detect when it is only sending a bit every 23 minutes for example. Longer time is harder to trace. Think of very intelligent algorithms using multiple channels for exfiltration.
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    > the predefined envelope of expected places to send things to. Also, in some cases the expected destinations have been hacked already, I'm guessing > multiple channels for exfiltration If they can send via wifi, it could be almost impossible to detect? So much noise in the wifi space?
    - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
      Let alone voltage leaks, vibrations of your window, your electronics, switching, it's all signal.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    If it only sends a bit every 23 minutes, the bitrate will be so low that nothing of interest can be sent. These sorts of vague accusations have been made against Huawei for several years now, but to date, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence that Huawei installs backdoors on its telecommunications equipment. Huawei devices are installed all over the place, and it's not as if there's been a lack of scrutiny. In the UK, Huawei even submitted to regular audits by British intelligence, and nothing was ever found. Every claim that's been made has turned out to be along the lines of, "We discovered that Huawei uses industry-standard tools to update firmware on its devices, and the network operators have the ability to oversee the updates." The accusations are pure assertions, backed up by a general suspicion of everything Chinese. This really began with Trump, and it's been sad to watch Western countries fall ever deeper into paranoia and hatred towards China. It's Yellow Peril v2.0.
midislack 4y ago
Come on, the Chinese already produce the majority of all components for major US infrastructure. What's the harm in giving them a little more? Heck they made John fuckin' Cena learn Chinese to apologize to Xi for saying he supports democracy. China won.
jollybean 4y ago
I don't know why all comms infrastructure doesn't require all hardware/software designs to be handed over to US gov. with some kind of security review for all updates. Obviously there are competitive problems there, but it's better than the alternative. Either that, or, more easily, no 'critical' infrastructure from China, Russia etc.. You gotta buy it form US, Canada, Europe etc.. You can buy grain, toys and beef from China, just not 5G gear.
anjel 4y ago
I'm sure the Pentagon could properly save alot of money off-shoring the F-35 factory but for some of reason or other that's not going to happen. Perhaps communications infrastructure has similar req'ts no one wants to acknowledge?

211 points by tusslewake 4y ago

> According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the FBI determined the equipment was capable of capturing and disrupting highly restricted Defense Department communications, including those used by US Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear weapons. If you write that they could capture these communications, it sounds like they could be read. But these comms must be encrypted, right? This story is a bit clickbaity - by that standard, some hobbyist with an antenna can "capture" DoD comms. And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
MrPatan 4y ago
Exactly, so why would you place devices made by your adversaries all over the place, where they can disrupt your comms?
boomboomsubban 4y ago
It's like getting several spooks to say your network card could intercept or disrupt all your internet traffic. It's making the equipment's purpose sound scary.
mlindner 4y ago
> And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver. Amateurs aren't running around the country placing transmitters near all the government comms. Also there's many types of encryption (onion routing for example) that depend on being able to intercept communications at multiple locations. Also there's still metadata that can be learned even without being able to read the comms directly, for example who's broadcasting at any moment. Even amateurs were able to figure out when Russia was launching missiles at Ukraine even from their encrypted comms, if you have a more advanced surveillance system in-country you can learn a lot more.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> shut down a high-profile regional consulate believed by the US government to be a hotbed of Chinese spies Every consulate - Chinese, American, you name it - is a hotbed of spies. The closure of the Houston consulate was just a political move by the Trump administration.

LMYahooTFY 4y ago
What you're casually dismissing as "just a political move" seemed to be a very well understood target which required state department cooperation to act against. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/chinas-foreign-technology-wish-list/ https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/chinas-foreign-techn... > HOUSTON AS A GLOBAL S&T HUB Before its closure in the summer of 2020, the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas was a major hub in China’s global S&T information gathering operation. From January 2015 to July 2020, Houston Consulate staff identified more S&T projects than any other PRC diplomatic post in the world, and referred 89 percent of the projects originating from the United States.56 During that time, the United States was the largest source of information technology projects targeted by Chinese S&T diplomats.57 From 2017 to 2019, the Houston Consulate cosponsored a series of “matchmaking” events with several Chinese technology transfer centers, attracting approximately three hundred U.S. businesses each year.58 Since the consulate’s closure in July 2020, the MOST bulletin of “international technical cooperation opportunities” has registered only one additional project from the United States, a virtual reality therapy company in Massachusetts.59
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Houston is not a particularly important science and technology hub in the US. The idea that Houston would be the most important focus of Chinese industrial espionage is non-sensical. > From 2017 to 2019, the Houston Consulate cosponsored a series of “matchmaking” events with several Chinese technology transfer centers, attracting approximately three hundred U.S. businesses each year. This is a very good example of how completely normal diplomatic activity is being cast as somehow malign. The Chinese government seeks foreign investment. Part of that involves the type of public events this passage is describing, in which the government invites a bunch of companies to a trade fair and pitches the idea of investing in China. The US does this abroad. Pretty much everyone does. This document is trying to blur the line between espionage and normal diplomatic activity. There is actual espionage that occurs out of embassies and consulates around the world. This isn't it.

hunglee2 4y ago

every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack - clearly anything foreign made is a higher security risk than one that is domestically made. Imagine an adversary being able to remotely trigger a nuclear war by issuing commands to a router

tablespoon 4y ago
> every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack - clearly anything foreign made is a higher security risk than one that is domestically made. Imagine an adversary being able to remotely trigger a nuclear war by issuing commands to a router You're weirdly implying every country is an adversary of every other. There's no good reason for "every country should manufacture its own entire telco stack," but it is reasonable for them to only source equipment from ideologically-aligned natural allies.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  huge risk to rely on any other country though, friends today may become enemies tomorrow. Have we already forgotten that US dropped atomic weapons on Japan yet are now fast allies or that US supported the Islamic fundamentalism in Afganistan before now becoming enemies. US + Saddam bosom buddies in the Iran vs Iraq war. The sample size is not exactly small.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > huge risk to rely on any other country though, friends today may become enemies tomorrow. Real life isn't some RTS game. If a flip like that happens, it won't happen very quickly. Also autarky isn't even possible for most countries, and is probably a weakness for most of those that could pull it off. > Have we already forgotten that US dropped atomic weapons on Japan yet are now fast allies... That's an example of an enemy becoming an ally, so not exactly relevant. > or that US supported the Islamic fundamentalism in Afganistan before now becoming enemies. US + Saddam bosom buddies in the Iran vs Iraq war. Those are allies of geopolitical necessity, not "ideologically-aligned natural allies." For the latter, I'm thinking of things like NATO (maybe sans a couple of members) and "the Anglosphere."

Johnmelodyme 4y ago

Oh....

roenxi 4y ago

US nuclear comms is, without exaggeration, one of the highest risks to every life on the entire planet. I'd be surprised if it was just the Chinese. It is unfortunate but the situation with Huawei is a matter of great FUD. On the one hand, they probably are dodgy as any organisation & in league with the People's Liberation Army. The major risk they pose is doing precisely what the the US is doing with their spy network and the risks of that are well understood. But on the other hand, while this may be a real story, but it is just one thread of a bigger story where the Asia keeps challenging the US's high-tech edge. CNN + the FBI is not a combination known for fair, honest and reasonable journalism and this could well just be stirring up muck, trying to discredit a superior Chinese solution.

saltman696 4y ago
beebeepka 4y ago
- FreqSep 4y ago
  Saddam Hussein did quite a bit more then just “challenge the bully”… I suppose genocide of the Kurds is acceptable on the internet as long as your suitably anti-American while you do it. Those darn American imperialists!
  - beebeepka 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - FreqSep 4y ago
      > I also checked your account and it's nothing but right wing propaganda. Damn, dude That’s odd, as I generally vote Democrat and the only post here I’ve submitted is to a math blog post I enjoy. At any rate, let’s try to avoid having this website turn into yet another Reddit or Twitter in terms of quality of comments and obsession about anything seen as not left leaning enough. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the merits of Saddam Hussein, here. Have a good weekend.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago

Construction materials in diplomatic pouches… understandable for an embassy, but for a non-diplomatic building abroad? What in the world were they trying to build with? US customs isn’t going to hold up any properly labeled containers of building materials, especially if the Chinese embassy asks the state department for help. (I get that “pouch” can mean shipping container)

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> multiple sources familiar with the investigation tell CNN that there's no question the Huawei equipment has the ability to intercept not only commercial cell traffic but also the highly restricted airwaves used by the military I am a bit out of date on the latest designs, but presumably antenna resonance, array phase (directionality) and radio spectrum are all controllable with software now. Any or all of these could be modified remotely and changed back to civilian cell parameters again in a matter of seconds. Additionally the firmware, and hence general capabilities, can be remotely updated. Hence, one can no longer look at a device like a modern radio cell and say "this is designed to work in such a way". If you impounded it, took it to a lab, what you'd see on the bench may have no relation to how it operated a few days ago. Given also that traffic to and from the device may be encrypted all the way back to Beijing, the operation of the devices cannot be attested even in principle. This is a serious general problem in modern security - one of unfalsifiability and plasticity of form and function. It applies as much to Windows and Apple computers as to Huawei. Unless we quickly reverse the trend toward vendor-trust models that give over total control to unverifiable remote entities we're all going to be seriously screwed soon. This is going to play out in the Intel microcode debacle, in Apple's iron control over devices in the face of EU interoperability edicts, and on many more fronts... And last I checked, our clinically insane UK government still hasn't fully buried the idea the Chinese might build us a nuclear power station over here!

godmode2019 4y ago
That was the same argument anti 5g people used for 5g arrays, they suggested the normal operation is safe but they can be turned up or focused on targets using software.
- LeonTheremin 4y ago
  Microwave attacks with covert tech have been happening since 1G in the 80s thanks to Silicon Trojans. The 5G crowd just didn't research fully. They are still right.
  - hammock 4y ago

gurumeditations 4y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

lizardactivist 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Pakdef 4y ago
Because HN tend to be on the left, like CNN.
- mlindner 4y ago
  I'm right-leaning but CNN is not universally bad. You should be paying attention to who the writer is more than what platform it's published on. Full hatred of one news website versus another is as absurd as complete allegiance to a single political party no matter what they do. Fox News and CNN are both legitimate news sites. Also since when is being anti-China a US political party issue? Last I checked it was one of the few things with broad agreement among US political parties.
  - Pakdef 4y ago
    > Fox News and CNN are both legitimate news sites. I avoid both.
  - 1over137 4y ago
- closewith 4y ago
  This seems like an absurd claim to me (as a Western European social democrat). The comments on Hacker News skew very far to the right on everything from fiscal policy to taxation to gun rights to employment rights to unions to data protection to corporate regulation. The only areas where HN could be considered centrist is the hot-button social issues in the States like LGBT+ or abortion rights. Certainly not left-leaning, anyway.
  - 4y ago

tester756 4y ago

>Critics see xenophobic overreach huh, that's why security is hard. Everything is fine until it isn't, the war starts and reality checks comes in.

rob_c 4y ago

Wait, I thought this was orange man racist? https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/business/huawei-trade-war/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/business/huawei-trade-war/ind... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/business/huawei-apple-china-tech-us/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/business/huawei-apple-china-t...

ethagknight 4y ago

I guess a city-wide network of cell towers could surreptitiously function as a phased array missile detection and air traffic radar too? The resolution but deep across enemy lines.

juanani 4y ago

kjellsbells 4y ago

I have to ask a dumb question here. Lets say that a piece of equipment was installed, with a secret backdoor chip to send data to another country. Surely the unexpected network flow would be detected outbound and investigated? I mean, if my firewall detects outbound traffic to weirdness.com, its going to stop it and alert, because weirdness is not in the predefined envelope of expected places to send things to. I feel I must be missing something big.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Exfiltration can be masked in any channel with a signal. So the exfiltration can be hard to detect when it is only sending a bit every 23 minutes for example. Longer time is harder to trace. Think of very intelligent algorithms using multiple channels for exfiltration.
- leaflets2 4y ago
  > the predefined envelope of expected places to send things to. Also, in some cases the expected destinations have been hacked already, I'm guessing > multiple channels for exfiltration If they can send via wifi, it could be almost impossible to detect? So much noise in the wifi space?
  - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
    Let alone voltage leaks, vibrations of your window, your electronics, switching, it's all signal.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  If it only sends a bit every 23 minutes, the bitrate will be so low that nothing of interest can be sent. These sorts of vague accusations have been made against Huawei for several years now, but to date, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence that Huawei installs backdoors on its telecommunications equipment. Huawei devices are installed all over the place, and it's not as if there's been a lack of scrutiny. In the UK, Huawei even submitted to regular audits by British intelligence, and nothing was ever found. Every claim that's been made has turned out to be along the lines of, "We discovered that Huawei uses industry-standard tools to update firmware on its devices, and the network operators have the ability to oversee the updates." The accusations are pure assertions, backed up by a general suspicion of everything Chinese. This really began with Trump, and it's been sad to watch Western countries fall ever deeper into paranoia and hatred towards China. It's Yellow Peril v2.0.

midislack 4y ago

Come on, the Chinese already produce the majority of all components for major US infrastructure. What's the harm in giving them a little more? Heck they made John fuckin' Cena learn Chinese to apologize to Xi for saying he supports democracy. China won.

jollybean 4y ago

I don't know why all comms infrastructure doesn't require all hardware/software designs to be handed over to US gov. with some kind of security review for all updates. Obviously there are competitive problems there, but it's better than the alternative. Either that, or, more easily, no 'critical' infrastructure from China, Russia etc.. You gotta buy it form US, Canada, Europe etc.. You can buy grain, toys and beef from China, just not 5G gear.

anjel 4y ago

I'm sure the Pentagon could properly save alot of money off-shoring the F-35 factory but for some of reason or other that's not going to happen. Perhaps communications infrastructure has similar req'ts no one wants to acknowledge?