The way the last administration rolled this out was certainly with a political narrative, but my guess is it originated with people that weren't thinking at all about politics.
The simple story is that core infrastructure is of strategic national importance, and an elevated risk that infrastructure is compromised can never be worth whatever the benefits are of using a particular supplier's equipment. There is no practical way to 100% ensure that every piece of software, and every chip, in every piece of equipment is clean. Chips are especially scary (the push to have domestic chip fab by the US and other countries is about more than just supply chain).
This is true when it comes from what are considered trustworthy suppliers as well, but you're dealing with probabilities. I think that regardless of whether this move fits into a political narrative about China, or "economic warfare", the practical basis is that for some types of equipment, the risk is just too large and the ability to mitigate too limited, in general.
Unfortunately this was figured out with Huawei/ZTE after the fact, but tbh I don't think the specific company matters at all, it just happened to be they were in this business at the time & based in the wrong country.
ANSSI, the French agency for information systems security, has severely tightened authorizations for vital infrastructure. Though Huawei is still kosher in many network functions, French telcos have had to remove a few thousand nodes they had already deployed, especially in network cores. All authorizations are temporary - between three and eight years.
This is not just about security in a narrow definition, but in a large part about ensuring that mastery of strategic functions remains with European firms.
Like armaments, telecommunication infrastructures are not a normal market.
> Like armaments, telecommunication infrastructures are not a normal market.
I don’t disagree, but how far are we going to take this? Under the strategic regime of 超限战, is any sector a “normal market”, or do all sectors take on strategic significance?
If I could put on my conspiracy hat... Perhaps this is related to Canada's detention of he Huawei executive. Someone put their foot down and said Chinese hardware is spying on us, and perhaps they forced China to give up how.
At it's core, the world absolutely cannot trust China. Because Huawei is a de facto company owned by the Chinese government, it stands to reason that the distrust must be extended to Huawei. The product may be good, but China has very little credibility anymore, and should absolutely not be trusted.
It is called the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution
> .... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The US government decided to make a judgment call on the legality of Huawei; the US government in keeping with the Law, paid just compensation to the owners of the equipment.
If we enable E2E encryption on the end points, why do we care if Huawei makes it since the local gov't retains local monopoly of force? The reasons I can think of are:
- meta-data
- denial of infrastructure. This is a big reason and a good enough reason.
Aside from reason number two, I really don't see the security threat. Not to minimize the threat of meta-data, but I think, on a national level, it too is solvable for the sovereign (by, for example, having phones make fake random calls to each other to poison the information)
EDIT: For the record, my question is genuine - I really want to understand this - and not some backhanded way to defend Huawei
The US is really against Huawei; this war has been happening since the rise of the 5G technology. They did various things against Huawei, like removing the Android OS and Google Playstore.
> The U.S. is about to start destroying tons of Huawei and ZTE equipment.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? Tons of perfectly good, top notch quality and 100% reliable RF gear are going to be destroyed because they fear there is spyware contained in the digital chips? I totally understand the arguments, but it's like throwing away a car because one doesn't trust the brakes. Just strip out the logic and sell the rest! Pollution aside, this is an insult to those who struggle to buy RF parts because of the shortage prices.
All my knowledge about this has come from Media articles
Covering the dangers of using huawei tech, but I haven’t seen anything that describes Chinese attacks using huawei equipment. We do know the long history of China sponsored hacking and it’s not a leap to go so far as to think Huawei could be compelled to backdoor equipment. For that reason not using Huawei is safer for national security one way or the other.
However, on Capitol Hill, I think the idea is more to harm China than protect. I remember that the Washington metro trains were almost blocked because they are built by a Chinese company. Someone in congress dreamed up a Tom Clancy plot where the Chinese could bring down Washington by hijacking their transit system.
Just about every data center in the US has a decent percent of its servers running as nodes of botnets for entities inside of China, not to mention the hundreds of millions of "smart" devices. That leaves out of the equation TickTock and Reddit and every other above-board Chinese communist party partly owned tech in the US.
Assuming that you know what your exact attack surface is is a pretty clear sign that you are very vulnerable to attack.
This is just a way for the government to subsidize telco equipment upgrades, using popular-with-voters nationalism and anti-Chinese racism as a pretext.
The US and China having a great power conflict - which will last for many decades, or longer - is not based on racism. The US conflicting with the USSR throughout the Cold War was also was not about racism.
It would be exceptionally irrational for the US to utilize the telecom equipment of a quasi enemy nation that is all but guaranteed to be a future enemy. It doesn't matter whether anyone likes those terms or not, that's how the US Government is increasingly viewing China - and vice versa - and that's what is coming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
> 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!
> 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.
> 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.
> All over the country, hardware from Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. keeps American telecom networks humming. In the coming months, many of those networks are going to start ripping it all out.
I'm curious how this is going to affect the end user. Are some users going to have slower speeds?
Probably will only affect cost, the US already has high costs for fiber and cellular internet. (Cellular is about 3 USD/GB in the US vs less than 2 USD/GB in most of Europe and Asia according to https://www.cable.co.uk/mobiles/worldwide-data-pricing/)
"it’ll likely take a four-person crew a week to overhaul each of his 67 towers"
Am I being too cynical? This seems high. Searching around about how long it takes once work begins, it appears that upgrade time is roughly half of that. Which leads me to believe that network operators will be perfectly happy to take the money while padding their expenses significantly.
I'm surprised by this. I vividly remember that the mere suggestion of these common sense national security measures a couple of years ago would lead to others having a stroke.
Ban Tik Tok next, too. It's ridiculous that we allow foreign intelligence to operate social networks in the US. And before anyone says "ackshually" in response, yes, I think it's ridiculous that other countries let FB, Google and YT operate within their borders largely unimpeded, rather than force them to create local subsidiares whose execs could be hauled off to jail for violation of local laws.
[+] [-] theincredulousk|4 years ago|reply
The simple story is that core infrastructure is of strategic national importance, and an elevated risk that infrastructure is compromised can never be worth whatever the benefits are of using a particular supplier's equipment. There is no practical way to 100% ensure that every piece of software, and every chip, in every piece of equipment is clean. Chips are especially scary (the push to have domestic chip fab by the US and other countries is about more than just supply chain).
This is true when it comes from what are considered trustworthy suppliers as well, but you're dealing with probabilities. I think that regardless of whether this move fits into a political narrative about China, or "economic warfare", the practical basis is that for some types of equipment, the risk is just too large and the ability to mitigate too limited, in general.
Unfortunately this was figured out with Huawei/ZTE after the fact, but tbh I don't think the specific company matters at all, it just happened to be they were in this business at the time & based in the wrong country.
[+] [-] liotier|4 years ago|reply
This is not just about security in a narrow definition, but in a large part about ensuring that mastery of strategic functions remains with European firms.
Like armaments, telecommunication infrastructures are not a normal market.
[+] [-] wyager|4 years ago|reply
I don’t disagree, but how far are we going to take this? Under the strategic regime of 超限战, is any sector a “normal market”, or do all sectors take on strategic significance?
[+] [-] Ajay-p|4 years ago|reply
At it's core, the world absolutely cannot trust China. Because Huawei is a de facto company owned by the Chinese government, it stands to reason that the distrust must be extended to Huawei. The product may be good, but China has very little credibility anymore, and should absolutely not be trusted.
[+] [-] nimbius|4 years ago|reply
https://www.zdnet.com/article/fcc-details-1-9-billion-progra...
[+] [-] OrvalWintermute|4 years ago|reply
It is called the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution
> .... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The US government decided to make a judgment call on the legality of Huawei; the US government in keeping with the Law, paid just compensation to the owners of the equipment.
It is the right call to make.
[+] [-] deelowe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdfasf|4 years ago|reply
If we enable E2E encryption on the end points, why do we care if Huawei makes it since the local gov't retains local monopoly of force? The reasons I can think of are:
- meta-data - denial of infrastructure. This is a big reason and a good enough reason.
Aside from reason number two, I really don't see the security threat. Not to minimize the threat of meta-data, but I think, on a national level, it too is solvable for the sovereign (by, for example, having phones make fake random calls to each other to poison the information)
EDIT: For the record, my question is genuine - I really want to understand this - and not some backhanded way to defend Huawei
[+] [-] tomhunters|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squarefoot|4 years ago|reply
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? Tons of perfectly good, top notch quality and 100% reliable RF gear are going to be destroyed because they fear there is spyware contained in the digital chips? I totally understand the arguments, but it's like throwing away a car because one doesn't trust the brakes. Just strip out the logic and sell the rest! Pollution aside, this is an insult to those who struggle to buy RF parts because of the shortage prices.
[+] [-] eyear|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ergocoder|4 years ago|reply
Even if the government finds one, they won't say it out loud. Nobody would hold them accountable. You cannot just incite WW3.
It is suboptimal but probably the best that it can be.
Remember the Malaysian airline that was shot down? I remember.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kube-system|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheese_van|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twobitshifter|4 years ago|reply
However, on Capitol Hill, I think the idea is more to harm China than protect. I remember that the Washington metro trains were almost blocked because they are built by a Chinese company. Someone in congress dreamed up a Tom Clancy plot where the Chinese could bring down Washington by hijacking their transit system.
[+] [-] gonational|4 years ago|reply
Assuming that you know what your exact attack surface is is a pretty clear sign that you are very vulnerable to attack.
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
It would be exceptionally irrational for the US to utilize the telecom equipment of a quasi enemy nation that is all but guaranteed to be a future enemy. It doesn't matter whether anyone likes those terms or not, that's how the US Government is increasingly viewing China - and vice versa - and that's what is coming.
[+] [-] jmacd|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pydry|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 3pt14159|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cletus|4 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] whoknowswhat11|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Al-Khwarizmi|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scandox|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scrubs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacknews|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chubot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] tablespoon|4 years ago|reply
Speaking of which, Huawei ads have been all over the NYT app for the last week or so.
[+] [-] president|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nafizh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thewarrior|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] topspin|4 years ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] sithadmin|4 years ago|reply
Backdoors? Being caught red handed doing espionage? Cozying up to bad actors like North Korea and Iran?
[+] [-] gonational|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] LurkingPenguin|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtnGoat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cinntaile|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EarthIsHome|4 years ago|reply
> All over the country, hardware from Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. keeps American telecom networks humming. In the coming months, many of those networks are going to start ripping it all out.
I'm curious how this is going to affect the end user. Are some users going to have slower speeds?
[+] [-] fabianhjr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thedigitalone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
Am I being too cynical? This seems high. Searching around about how long it takes once work begins, it appears that upgrade time is roughly half of that. Which leads me to believe that network operators will be perfectly happy to take the money while padding their expenses significantly.
[+] [-] m0zg|4 years ago|reply
Ban Tik Tok next, too. It's ridiculous that we allow foreign intelligence to operate social networks in the US. And before anyone says "ackshually" in response, yes, I think it's ridiculous that other countries let FB, Google and YT operate within their borders largely unimpeded, rather than force them to create local subsidiares whose execs could be hauled off to jail for violation of local laws.
[+] [-] PrinceRichard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|4 years ago|reply
It is just have to wake up on both sides not to rely upon each other. China should not use USA thing as well … if they can choose.