[HN Gopher] U.S. to open program to replace Huawei equipment in ...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. to open program to replace Huawei equipment in U.S. networks
Author : DocFeind
Score : 110 points
Date : 2021-09-27 20:17 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| sschueller wrote:
| So a $1.9 billion gift to cisco from the feds?
| 1cvmask wrote:
| They will surely return it to management as bonuses and stock
| buybacks for shareholders.
|
| The Intel model of stimulus. Now TSMC runs the show in high end
| semiconductors.
| anonymouswacker wrote:
| We can call it a stimulus, or paying them to fix a broken
| window.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Nokia and Ericsson, not Cisco.
|
| Although, the Huawei stuff definitely needs to go, so your
| characterization is still off.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| For background, a couple of posts on the Huawei 5G debacle. From
| the UK viewpoint, but at least partly relevant to other western
| powers. https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/
| https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g-the-uk-gets-a-lesson-in-g...
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| This is great.
|
| The next question will be how much trust can we place in the
| networks of our allies that still use compromised equipment from
| Huawei?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "how much trust can we place"
|
| If we really cared about trust, we would mandate that all
| national infrustructure be open source and, at a minimum,
| independantly security reviwed, and written in a safe language.
|
| This comes across just political posturing as usual.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And real question how much trust the "allies" can place in any
| equipment from USA...
| kube-system wrote:
| If you have an agreement with [country A] to work together in
| pursuit of the same goals, and you _don 't_ have an agreement
| with [country B] to work together in pursuit of the same
| goals. Which one would you trust more?
| dleslie wrote:
| Let's imagine this as personal relationships.
|
| On the one hand, your trusted and long-term partner shares a
| credit card and bank account with you, so you're aware that
| they know how and where you're spending money. You spend a
| lot of time together at home, so it's likely they're
| listening into your phone calls.
|
| On the other hand, a malicious individual has infiltrated
| your bank account and installed surveillance equipment in
| your home.
|
| These two situations are not the same.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "Let's imagine this as personal relationships"
|
| Antopomorphism of giant bureaucracies is either naivity or
| schisophrenia.
|
| Just like "Consumers Have Human-like Relationships with
| Brands". I work in a big corp, it's a constant battle to
| make it treat humans as humans, and a losing one.
| dleslie wrote:
| Metaphors aren't meant to be literal, they're meant to be
| demonstrative for illustrative purposes.
| mehlmao wrote:
| Is the malicious individual the NSA backdooring Juniper and
| other firewalls, is it China, or both?
| dleslie wrote:
| It's obviously China.
|
| We might not like everything our partners do, but there's
| a reason we have a basis of trust with them and not with
| clearly adversarial and malicious entities.
| jacquesm wrote:
| There is hard proof that both Belgium and Germany had
| various networks/major telcos compromised. And I would
| not be at all surprised if there were others.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| The last clear report we had was from 2013 and the answer
| then was "Trust. LOL!"
| sct202 wrote:
| Shouldn't be too much of a worry since the next 2 largest
| vendors of telecom equipment are European (Nokia and
| Ericsson). Although, Nokia owns the remnants of a bunch of US
| companies like Lucent and Motorola Networks so they may be
| more connected to the US.
| jpgvm wrote:
| I would say the biggest and most important chunks of both
| came from Nortel. Vast majority of what we consider as 4G
| and 5G was developed at Nortel and during the collapse was
| scooped up by Ericson/Nokia and Huawei (though the latter
| mostly just hired ex-Nortel researchers and engineers).
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Not 5G. The reason why Huawei became a leader in 5G is
| that they created all their technology around the
| discoveries of Erdal Arikan and bet the whole farm on it:
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-
| break...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdal_Ar%C4%B1kan
| throwaway4web wrote:
| > Vast majority of what we consider as 4G and 5G was
| developed at Nortel and during the collapse was scooped
| up by Ericson
|
| This is simply not true.
|
| Source: worked for Ericsson for 17 years. Worker on both
| 4G and 5G / cloud native. Also worked with ex Nortel
| people.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Vast majority of what we consider as 4G and 5G was
| developed at Nortel
|
| Citation needed here.
|
| The company was dead years before they drafted the first
| spec for 4G.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Those are also compromised. Phillips telecoms used to have
| trapdoors for the NSA and so did Ericsson.
|
| Some of the Nokia routers from the early 2000s made in
| Oregon also did allegedly.
|
| https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/02/phone_tappin
| g...
|
| https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/greek_wireta
| p...
|
| https://theintercept.com/2018/03/01/nsa-global-
| surveillance-...
| throwaway4web wrote:
| The Greek wiretapping case involving Ericsson equipment
| was not due to a "trapdoor" but a malicious implant
| installed by a threat actor. This is documented in an
| excellent article by the IEEE [1]
|
| Darknet Diaries produced a podcast on the whole affair
| which makes for great listening. The podcast episode
| includes additional details which have surfaced after the
| IEEE article mentioned [2]
|
| [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-athens-affair
|
| [2] https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/64/
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| Any country that doesn't want others to read its
| communications is going to have to produce its own telecoms
| equipment, because the temptation of a country to put
| backdoors in it is just too high.
| echelon wrote:
| > The next question will be how much trust can we place in the
| networks of our allies that still use compromised equipment
| from Huawei?
|
| Start a similar program to replace their equipment, too.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Not very likely IMO. Even if they US paid for the hardware
| many (most?) users of Huawei tele equipment would not want to
| touch it (especially not US made). Huawei had a much better
| reputation (and in my experience they still do with people
| that actually touch the hardware) for listening to requests
| from users/buyers than pretty much any other manufacture.
| There's a reason their equipment is widespread and unlike
| what most seem to believe price is at best on par with them
| being better. The difference in what I have heard and read
| from people that work with this and the mainstream-media etc.
| is mindbogglingly different. Only in a few articles in
| mainstream-media have I seen those people even asked their
| opinion and then the picture is much, much less one-sided.
| jpgvm wrote:
| Do people already need a reminder of the Juniper JunOS
| situation?
|
| I don't think this is a good thing.
|
| On one had we have Huawei which is untrusted by default,
| everyone assumes it has a backdoor but yet there are no reports
| of said backdoor and no evidence that networks using the
| hardware have suffered from exfiltration or infiltration.
|
| On the other hand Juniper was very publicly compromised and
| networks running their hardware were most definitely subject to
| attack.
|
| That said; this is probably primarily focused on wireless
| networks and if they are replacing Huawei it will be with
| Ericson or Nokia gear which I think we can have some manner of
| trust in.
|
| EDIT: My point is I think the Huawei equipment being assumed
| untrusted is a better model than assumed "trusted" suppliers
| that can easily be back doored because no-one is looking as
| hard.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > I don't think this is a good thing.
|
| The CCP has been at war with the US since 1947, but you don't
| think it's a good thing?
| sebow wrote:
| I don't know what you're talking about with "allegedly".
|
| Bloomberg "allegedly" found HW backdoors in huawei, Vodafone
| also "allegedly" found backdoors in their equipment from
| huawei back in the day(i think about a decade ago).
|
| When you go talk to your red-team pentester friends, you
| quickly find out that the black market is full of 0days or
| full-blown backdoors for huawei equipment, from routers to
| consumer-grade mobile phones.They're not the only ones, but
| there's a clear discrepancy.
|
| While in the consumer space Huawei might not be ever fully-
| banned (imo even though they should, because people are
| f*cking stupid and it's already too late), in gov &
| military(especially NATO) infrastructure, i'm guaranteeing
| they're already(US,AUS,JP,PL,RO) or soon to be banned.
|
| Now the what-about argument is gonna follow here, saying "how
| about western companies that also engage in privacy-violating
| and espionage policies?".Yes that's also obviously true, but
| to a much lesser degree, and those companies/corporations
| main concern is money&profit,unlike Huawei.They might collude
| with governments and institutions, but they're not fully
| controlled by one, like in the fascistic China at the
| moment.And i say fascistic because chinese companies
| conveniently use 'free'-markets inside China and Western
| countries up to the point where their gov. notices and
| dictates their every move.
| Veserv wrote:
| This is meaningless.
|
| Even if we assume that all Huawei products are currently
| backdoored, the security of commercial IT products is so bad
| that they pose no impediment to any organization more talented
| than a group of script kiddies. A complete replacement of all
| Huawei equipment does not in any way materially improve
| security of the network against a competent nation state
| attacker. At most it might cause their operational budget to
| increase by 0.1% to fund exploit development of the replacement
| equipment on the off chance that they are utterly incompetent
| and do not already have a hoard of hundreds of exploits in all
| existing systems like the CIA did as revealed in the Vault 7
| hack.
|
| A material increase in security would require switching from
| Huawei to systems around 1000x better than prevailing systems
| otherwise you should have exactly zero trust that the security
| of the network can even minimally impede an adversary like
| China.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Even if we assume that all Huawei products are currently
| backdoored, the security of commercial IT products is so bad
| that they pose no impediment to any organization more
| talented than a group of script kiddies.
|
| The primary issue that the USG has with Huawei equipment is
| not technical security. It's trust and governance.
|
| I'll give you a really simplistic hypothetical example: Let's
| say a Cisco and a Huawei box have the same exact
| vulnerability, and the US and China engage in an all-out
| cyber war. China can simply block Huawei's support staff with
| sanctions. They don't need a back door. Meanwhile the Cisco
| tech is already patching the Cisco box. Equal technology,
| unequal results.
|
| Not all issues regarding technology are about purely
| technical issues. Technology has to be implemented,
| maintained, patched, supported, etc. Those are primarily
| concerns of trust.
| khana wrote:
| Good.
| Railsify wrote:
| NOK
| guilhas wrote:
| Free trade, only good when you're on top.
|
| Also these equipments have been produced in China for decades,
| even western branded ones, and there is still no proof that they
| pose any security risk. As opposed to USA companies well
| documented to spy USA allies, and their own population, for
| government agencies
| dleslie wrote:
| Yes, Huawei has never done anything untoward. /s
|
| There's a whole section[0], and another entire page[1] on
| Wikipedia detailing accusations against them. China, too, has
| quite the detailed presence[2]. So let's not pretend they're
| trustworthy.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei
|
| 2:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_...
| Dah00n wrote:
| I'm sorry but this is a very low effort post that a quick
| look at any article about Snowden's revelations would crush.
| Wikipedia simply cannot be used like this. You might as well
| count words on pro and against articles. Especially not
| useful as most facts in this area are at best poisoned facts
| -knowledge that has a biased source that cannot be trusted
| like the US intelligence community- and you are using a
| mainly US English site which in itself will have a bias
| against China.
|
| If you really do want to compare you could compare proven
| backdoors (which would destroy Cisco but not Huawei) instead
| of looking at accusations, which is pointless.
| dleslie wrote:
| If you take a look at the Criticism of Huawei page, you'll
| find that it contains far more than accusations.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I would mention that you can find an equal amount of
| controversies, if not vast amounts more, about the US
| government, and that there are entire agencies that
| manipulate media and Wikipedia articles. An accusation is far
| from a finding of fact and a discovered peer-reviewed
| exploit.
|
| Also, the US could seem to care less if the home routers,
| modems, phones, and other equipment made in China are
| backdoored that these business employees are still using.
| dleslie wrote:
| Of course there exists plenty of evidence of American
| surveillance.
|
| But when the USA spies, it does so in the interests of the
| American state and in the shared interests of the Five
| Eyes. When China spies it does so in the interest of China.
| For Americans, or citizens of the Five Eyes, there is at
| least some aligned interest with the state they inhabit and
| some political recourse available within it. Nothing like
| that exists for them with China.
| dirtyid wrote:
| >citizens of the Five Eyes, there is at least some
| aligned interest
|
| The FVEY surveilliance sharing mechanism is designed
| explicitly to circumvent limits on domestic spying by
| domestic agencies. It is quite literally an institution
| designed to undermine the civilian interests of Five Eye
| countries. AU Prime Minsiter Turnbull literally admitted
| the reason why Huawei was banned from AU networks was
| because Huawei hardware made it harder to surveil on
| AU/FVEY citizens.
| dleslie wrote:
| I am aware; being spied on by allies is still a world of
| difference than being spied on by China, or Russia, or
| Iran, or other adversarial nations.
|
| At the very least, citizens of Five Eyes nations can
| attempt to end it by contacting their representatives.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| How is it worse? I also don't have a lot of faith in
| representatives passing the same legislation you'd be
| trying to argue against, especially with the near-
| trillion dollar lobbying industry.
| guilhas wrote:
| So many allegations and accusations, solid case right there
|
| Also for most points, you could just replace Huawei with any
| big USA technology company
| dleslie wrote:
| Yes, American companies also engage in surveillance; we
| know that to be true. For Americans, and citizens of the
| Five Eyes, that is a world of difference than being spied
| on by China. At least those citizens have aligned interests
| and political recourse with their states; with China, they
| have no such relationship.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| > At least those citizens have aligned interests and
| political recourse with their states;
|
| I'm curious to know what recourse you think western
| citizens have for unknown abuses from their governments'
| surveillance states.
| tw04 wrote:
| I'm curious which US manufacturer directly stole source code
| from a Chinese manufacturer to create a competing product.
| China has never been interested in free trade. They've been
| interested in free flow of trade secrets into China and free
| flow out of competing products at a reduced price built off
| those trade secrets.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20110915023155/http://www.busine...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10485560675556000
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/business/t-mobile-accuses...
|
| All of that is ignoring Nortel...
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| Nortel collapsed long before Huawei even began expanding out
| of China. The recent attempts to blame China for Nortel's
| collapse don't even make basic chronological sense.
| guilhas wrote:
| Uh they stole scraps here and there... they are years ahead
| on 5G technology
| Dah00n wrote:
| This is, of course, pure politics with no meat or foundation in
| reality. If they are exchanged with equipment like Cisco or other
| US made (well, designed) products it is a big step backwards. Not
| only do they have a much worse proven track-record (especially
| Cisco) but no US manufacture (and really no EU either that I have
| heard of) can match Huawei in getting your own custom stuff
| pushed through to release. I have never heard someone from the
| industry acknowledge anyone beating Huawei in R&D and time to
| deliver custom requests to code or hardware. They are light-years
| ahead of most other manufactures in those areas IMO and if they
| were a US company everyone would praise them (they still do but
| not too loudly). They are like Ubiquiti - before they started to
| suck.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Well you started to support local suppliers with real dough,
| which is a start. The real question is, is Nokia or whoever can
| grab the opportunity and put down more cash on RnD?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Not only that, but Cisco has acquired so many Chinese companies
| that they are practically Chinese at this point. Working in one
| of their US government cloud environments, we were constantly
| talking internally about the odd changes coming from their
| China-based employees but superiors didn't seem to care.
| tw04 wrote:
| You would have to be far, far more specific in what areas they
| are "light-years ahead". Huawei are nothing approaching light-
| years ahead in the areas this programs is targeting, they're
| just cheaper. The primary complaint from small ISPs wasn't that
| Cisco or Arista or Calix or _insert vendor_ don 't have
| competing or even better products, it's that they are "too
| expensive".
| Dah00n wrote:
| Maybe in a small deployment, yes, but in bigger deployments
| the price is not the main point. If you need a specific
| software fix pushed through quickly, good luck if you have US
| made equipment. Even when (if) you succeed it is often fixed
| by Chinese or other Asian coders anyway. It is insanity.
| jakearmitage wrote:
| Found the 50 cent army soldier.
| cletus wrote:
| I view this as inevitable. Networking infrastructure has a valid
| national security interest.
|
| Companies in China are extensions of the state and tools of
| foreign policy. Sure these companies are notionally private but
| the people who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and
| the price for that is loyalty.
|
| I believe this will continue and I fully expect that at some
| point the United States will deem those born in mainland China,
| regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk and they
| won't be allowed to work in areas of national security or
| national interest.
|
| This goes beyond classified material and extends to China
| cheating on trade including, but not limited to, the wholesale
| theft of intellectual property through "partnerships" and other
| means as the price Western companies pay for "access" to the
| Chinese market.
|
| Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't
| allow it to happen. They're literally giving away their secret
| sauce chasing a phantom. There's a reason why there are Chinese
| versions of every Western company you can think of that's
| dominant in China.
|
| Why the issue with those born in mainland China? Because China
| doesn't allow dual-citizenship. Those that become naturalized in
| the United States, for example, lose their Chinese citizenship.
| This then becomes a carrot the CCP can dangle in front of those
| wishing to return: restoration of citizenship. That is, of
| course, if you happen to have a particular set of knowledge or
| skills deemed important to China.
|
| What I believe is most needed immediately is reciprocity in
| trade. That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to
| the Chinese market (for the record, it's China's right to
| restrict this for whatever national interest they wish) then
| Chinese companies should be similarly restricted in the West.
| coliveira wrote:
| The US exerts a lot of pressure on US companies for
| geopolitical reasons, so this puts them in the same level as
| the Chinese government. Everybody knows that the US compiles
| "avoid-lists" of countries they want to attack, and companies
| have to comply or suffer huge penalties. This absurd push to
| remove Chinese products from the market is just the latest
| example.
| cletus wrote:
| I see a lot of this on this topic. It's the fallacy of false
| equivalence.
|
| For example, the United States clearly has dark stains in its
| history. Slavery obviously, Japanese interment in WW2, the
| treatment of Native Americans (eg Trail of Tears),
| segregation, etc. And these are all raised as counterpoints
| when criticizing China for human rights abuses.
|
| But here's the difference. You can't end up in prison of a
| "re-education" camp in the US for discussing any of these.
| Now compare that to China's treatment of political
| "dissidents", the treatment of the Uighurs, Tibet, the
| Tiannemen Square massacre and the censorship of these and
| other issues.
|
| So no, they're not equivalent.
|
| It's the same for "pressure" on US companies. It's a question
| of degree. The US has courts that can check the power of
| executive or legislative overreach. US companies can (and
| have) resisted the US governments efforts within these legal
| frameworks.
|
| Twitter and Facebook, both US companies, removed a _sitting
| US president_ from their platforms after excessive policy
| violations (and justifiably so) so whatever "geopolitical
| pressure" you imagine, it's simply less in the US.
| nnm wrote:
| Can't believe a comment that openly discriminated China-born US
| citizens is now a top comment. The whole logic behind the
| argument (around China-born US citizens) is so weak.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Not weak though, China known to use remaining family as
| leverage and many other, see Operation Fox Hunt:
| https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-
| ch...
|
| As you say it is China-born US citizen, and yes maybe we have
| to do some "discrimination" but in the neutral sense not the
| bad one. Some national security work you are require to
| renounce foreign citizenship or can not have foreign
| citizenship from some place, we have precedent already.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >China cheating on trade including, but not limited to, the
| wholesale theft of intellectual property through "partnerships"
|
| This sounds almost like it was taken from a political sound-
| bite. In reality the US have forced the hand of other countries
| through diplomacy, sanctions, war, etc. to a far higher degree
| than China (at least so far) if nothing else than because of a
| longer history of being in a position to do so. It is pure
| politics and have little or no base in actual reality of the
| hardware made by the companies mentioned in the articles or
| Chinese behaviour towards Western businesses.
|
| This is just Us Versus Them. The US have no high road to take
| here at all and I'm surprised HN seems to believe this has
| anything to do with China cheating, stealing IPs or whatever
| they newest accusation is when in reality it should be clear as
| day to anyone that it is simply the US trying to remain top-dog
| and force its way on others and nothing else. If China didn't
| do as they do it would just be some other accusations.
| enkid wrote:
| The US wants IP laws so it can protect it's innovation. The
| rest of the Western world agrees. The US is also more likely
| to maintain human rights, which China absolutely does not
| care about. I would much rather the US be top dog than China,
| even though it has plenty of issues and has made mistakes.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Go to a prison in the Midwest and ask prisoners about their
| human rights. The US is full of abuse, but the wealthy are
| really good at pretending it doesn't exist and the poor are
| so busy fighting with the middle class that they don't have
| the time or money to do anything about it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western" and
| the other way around and not much of meaning or value would be
| lost.
|
| It's the rest of the world that's really up the creek without a
| paddle in this respect, they have no options other than to side
| with either behemoth and hope for the best.
| seneca wrote:
| > Replace "China" with "The USA" and "Eastern" with "Western"
| and the other way around and not much of meaning or value
| would be lost.
|
| This is nonsense, and basically textbook whataboutism.
| Companies in the US are not an extension of the state in
| anyway near the way Chinese firms are, even if some collude.
| The US allows dual citizenship.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| There's a huge amount of false "conventional wisdom" here.
|
| > Sure these companies are notionally private but the people
| who own them exist because the CCP allows them to and the price
| for that is loyalty.
|
| The government does not by any means micromanage or control
| even a tiny fraction of companies in China in the way you're
| implying. The government could theoretically exert pressure on
| companies for various reasons, but that's not at all unique to
| China. How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US
| government?
|
| > the wholesale theft of intellectual property through
| "partnerships"
|
| First of all, these partnerships were not theft. Be careful
| about making these sorts of accusations. China made a pretty
| simple deal with foreign companies: you get to access our
| massive pool of cheap labor, and in return, you transfer some
| amount of technology to a local partner. I don't actually see
| anything immoral with this. It's a fair trade.
|
| Second of all, these requirements for local partnerships have
| been phased out over time, and are limited now to certain
| sectors. For example, Tesla wholly owns its operations in
| China.
|
| > Western companies won't "win" in China because the CCP won't
| allow it to happen.
|
| Western companies have been "winning" in China for decades. Not
| only have they been able to exploit cheap labor, but they have
| conquered many sectors of China's internal market. VWs are
| ubiquitous in China, and as of last year, Tesla was the top-
| selling EV car manufacturer in China. China is one of the
| largest markets for Boeing and Airbus. Qualcomm gets 2/3 of its
| revenue from China. I could go on, but you get the point.
|
| > That is, if Western companies aren't given fair access to the
| Chinese market
|
| American and European brands are far more dominant in China
| than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei
| shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling
| low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as
| strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained
| national security grounds.
| cletus wrote:
| > The government does not by any means micromanage or control
| even a tiny fraction of companies in China
|
| This is a straw man argument. No one accused China of micro-
| managing companies. It's never that overt. For example of how
| this works in the real world, look at Vladimir Putin in
| Russia and the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky [1]. He was, at
| the time, one of the most richest and powerful oligarchs in
| Russia. By imprisoning him, Putin sent the message that no
| other oligarch was safe and if they wanted to continue to
| exist they had to fall in line, which they did.
|
| > How tightly connected is Silicon Valley to the US
| government?
|
| I'll assume good intent here and that this isn't simply
| "butwhataboutism". US companies need to obey US laws of
| course. This includes, for example, the FISA court nonsense.
| You can argue that Chinese companies are simply following
| Chinese law. While that's technically true, it's a question
| of degree.
|
| US companies are more independent from the US government than
| Chinese companies are from the Chinese government.
|
| > First of all, these partnerships were not theft.
|
| I beg to differ. For example, look at the case of ASMC and
| Sinovel [2].
|
| > ... and as of last year, Tesla was the top-selling EV car
| manufacturer in China
|
| Now to much this year [3].
|
| > China is one of the largest markets for Boeing and Airbus.
|
| Yes, because China _currently_ cannot make commercial
| aircraft at scale to compete with Boeing and Airbus. I
| guarantee you that 's a problem they're working on and
| they're going to be aided by the boards of both companies
| giving away the keys to the kingdom for access to that
| market.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
|
| [2]: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/25/technology/china-us-
| sinovel...
|
| [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/investing/tesla-china-
| sales/i...
| finikytou wrote:
| why only companies in china? we know for a fact that apple or
| microsoft have backdoors that US government (and Israeli
| looking at this year events) can leverage to enact pretty much
| what they deem as natitonal interest
| cletus wrote:
| You're going to have to clarify what you're talking about.
| These claims I've tended to find actually confuse several
| issues and misconstrue reality, intentionally or
| unintentionally.
|
| For example, the US has the FISA courts with all that entails
| (eg National Security Letters, pen registers). There is a
| legal framework for this whether you like it or not. My
| personal view is that the whole FISA system is overreach open
| to abuse that lacks transparency. But at least Federal judges
| are still involved in the process.
|
| Or are you talking about something else? Something
| extrajudicial perhaps?
|
| For example, countries (including the US) use allied
| intelligence agencies as an end run around their own laws.
| The NSA has certain restrictions on spying on US citizens
| that, say, Germany or Israel do not. So the NSA can get
| counterparts to do their dirty work and in turn the NSA does
| their dirty work.
|
| Is that what you mean? If so, what's the relevance here? If
| not, then what?
| _jal wrote:
| Oddly, you're trying to challenge a claim about covert
| technical intelligence mechanisms with descriptions of
| legal mechanisms governing surveillance. That's like
| responding to complaints about trespassing with the legal
| code governing rentals.
|
| In any case, we do have examples of exactly what the gp is
| talking about.
|
| For instance, this one, which subsequently backfired:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-02/juniper-
| m...
| thefounder wrote:
| I think you've been away in the last 10-15 years.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Either that or part of the same PsyOp groups in Israel
| that frequently try to discredit anything negative about
| their country.
| thefounder wrote:
| Well...U.S being a super power has its reasons
| fvdessen wrote:
| Seems like if you are neither in China or the US you are now
| some kind of third world citizen and must choose which of the
| above can monitor your communications
| jmacd wrote:
| This issue seems to have been tiptoed around and many governments
| have tried to "play fair" about some aspects of critical
| infrastructure.
|
| If the strategic importance of a company like ASML hasn't taught
| western governments how much is at stake when it comes to getting
| a technology edge then I'm not sure what will.
| coliveira wrote:
| The US has never proved that there is any kind of Chinese
| surveillance going on with Huawei equipment. Lying and anti-
| market strategies seem to be the tool of choice of the US
| government to block the advance of societies that are not deemed
| to be part of their empire.
| xster wrote:
| The NSA has been hacking Huawei for years. If it had anything
| concrete, it would have shared it years ago rather than forcing
| its NATO allies to dump Huawei based on vagueries like "I know
| we wiretapped your chancellor, but trust us, Huawei is evil,
| we're just not going to prove it to you".
|
| https://www.computerworld.com/article/2488962/nsa-hacked-int...
| [deleted]
| jjcon wrote:
| I don't think anyone needs to prove malfeasance here - a threat
| to national security doesn't require wrongdoing, only the
| existence of attack vectors by a foreign hostile nation/entity.
| Publishing those attack vectors would be a hilariously terrible
| idea as it would have ramifications in every country with
| Huawei in its infrastructure. Plenty of products are deemed
| essential and produced domestically or only by close allies,
| this goes for just about every country, I'm not sure why
| communications infrastructure is somehow different.
| nimbius wrote:
| id go so far as to say this is more a one-time 1.9 billion dollar
| bailout for the telecom industry.
|
| the bitter truth is nobody in the USA made it to market as fast
| as Huawei with 5G for a number of reasons. AT&T and others rested
| on their laurels, content with a monopoly market where they
| defined what 4g speeds were and werent. They became convinced
| they could extend this monopoly assertion to the rest of the
| world either through sheer hubris or through blind ignorance.
| Once the global market called their bluff, they scrambled for
| protectionism from the US government in the form of
| unsubstantiated sinophobic rhetoric, and stoked an elderly
| congress still rife with bubbling anticommunist sentiment. Trump
| gave them their trade war and it wasnt until Canadian bourgeoise
| faced chinese prisons that they were forced to acquiesce.
| Huawei's CFO signed off on largely symbolic US charges, and
| resumed her life.
|
| Now the only damage control can come from US taxpayers, forced to
| pay twice for inferior 5G.
| jpgvm wrote:
| It's simpler than that. The Chinese Development Bank offered
| very generous credit to Huawei in a time where the West was
| letting some of it's most innovative companies collapse or
| languish (the 2008 financial crisis). Nortel was the main
| reason this all happened. They were the ones that were doing
| all the cutting edge wireless network research and when they
| collapsed Huawei was the one that executed the best in the wake
| of said collapse.
|
| Say what you will about Chinese companies but damn some of them
| execute well.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Huawei's CFO signed off on largely symbolic US charges, and
| resumed her life.
|
| She resumed her life in return for selling out Huawei. Huawei
| was put in such a position as to make their further operations
| in the US very difficult.
|
| https://twitter.com/freekorea_us/status/1441822007897690115
|
| The replacement program is really a bailout for US telecom
| operations, now that Huawei can barely support them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-27 23:00 UTC)