As for you main argument, we can worry both for Huaewei and Google/FB. It's not either or the other(s).
As for you main argument, we can worry both for Huaewei and Google/FB. It's not either or the other(s).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/20/cia-offer...
https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-leaders-and-founders/article/...
It's not a coincidence that APT steals IP and "somehow" Chinese companies have advanced 20 years in research.
The only concern about Huawei is that it cannot disobey Chinese government orders issued against Huawei's will. (Sounds familiar? All those companies that dropped Huawei due to an US government order? How so many were being apologists for Google because "Google didn't have a choice"?) Saying Huawei is "literally the Chinese government" without providing proof and asking us to simply follow the rhetoric by suspending all disbelief is a very lazy and dishonest tactic.
I don’t think a company that is “literally the Chinese government” would be sold to a foreign company.
> The founder was literally a PLA
Along with literally millions of other Chinese people. Being in the PLA when he was young means next to nothing.
If you're afraid of a foreign country using its technology providers to spy on you, you have two options:
1. Don't use technology from that country.
2. Only use technology from that country that you are confident you can audit.
There's nothing Huawei can do, beyond what it's already done (offer to open up its tech for audits by foreign intelligence services), to allay the fundamental fears you're expressing. In the same manner, there's almost nothing American companies can do to allay the fears of foreigner countries (or US citizens, for that manner) that their tech won't be used by American intelligence agencies. The logical conclusion of this is that every country must develop its own technological base, and that's not a future I want to live in.That said, it's really not a stretch. To give just one example: There are strong suggestions that Microsoft got NSA money to buy Skype, principally so that MS would revert Skype to a server-based model and take encryption out. Whether this case is true or not, it seems pretty certain that the US government makes use of national players. And it would be incredibly far fetched to even imagine the PRC not doing the same thing.
From the article:
> The leader in the global undersea cable market is SubCom of the U.S. Japan's NEC and Europe's Alcatel-Lucent
Each of these have strong ties to their respective government and could build backdoors.
Do you know which telco companies have more connections to the Chinese government? Every other Chinese company. Even Foxconn which manufactures your iDevice has Communist representatives in their management.