Funny, a couple days ago the title was "Huawei spied on Dutch bla bla". Today it's "may have spied".
The original article (well, the translation bondarchuk posted here) says they had the access. Not that they did anything with it.
The original article (well, the translation bondarchuk posted here) says they had the access. Not that they did anything with it.
They had unauthorized access, which means they used it. It's not clear for what currently, that's why it describes the scope of access.
They also found that the application can tap entire phone calls, which was forbidden.
Edit:
What do you think the following means ( Dutch is my native tongue, lol):
> ‘Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden’, vermeldt het rapport in april 2010.
Translation: Unchecked and unauthorized access has taken place from china after 28 October 2009.
Original article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
> They had unauthorized access
No it doesn't
>which means they used it
Does it?
As per HN regs, "The article mentions that."
The Capgemini report stated:
- They had accessed KPN's network without authorization and from China in 2009. They circumvented the default password policy from KPN
- They could have eavesdropped, because they had an application that enabled it, which was forbidden.
Also. The Dutch statement of KPN that the Guardian mentioned was not: "adding that none of its suppliers had “unauthorised, uncontrolled or unlimited access to our networks and systems”, as the article states.
The literal statement was ( in dutch):
> "Geen enkele leverancier van KPN heeft 'ongeautoriseerde, ongecontroleerde en ongelimiteerde' toegang tot de netwerken en systemen, of is in staat om KPN-klanten af te luisteren of tapinformatie in te zien."
Which is misleading, since it means: "Currently, no supplier has 'unauthorized and uncontrolled and unlimited' access to our networks and systems." This can be true, because they changed a lot because of the security audit that got leaked.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle... ( google cache is possible if you want to translate it fyi)
PS. I'm a native dutch speaker. There's a whole discussion about the misleading statement from KPN here: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/180642/tweede-kamer-wil-opnieuw-...
Would you hire a locksmith if he had a record of stalking people?
The CCP is known to commit human rights violations, especially against it's Uighurs population.
Providing data to them is furthering these human rights violations.
Yes you can say other countries spy on citizens, but what the country does with the data is an important distinction.
Furthermore, there's usually a judicial process to request this data in other countries.
A warrant is needed from a judge, and even still any action must go through the legal process. Such is not true for the CCP.
From political dissent to being a minority can be your crime, there is no jury, there is no trial.
You don't have to wonder what China does with it's data. They track and imprison people for their dissent and ethnic status. There is no trial by jury. You are sent off to a work camp.
That does not happen in modern democracies. If you have evidence of such, please present it.
Proof against CCP: https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/
Just to get ahead of this but some people like to say you can compare the US immigration centers to the CCP concentration camps.
This is a false equivalency and a common CCP-propaganda talking point.
People willingly migrate to the US and are relieved when they hit these camps, they turn themselves in on purpose. They are processed and either deported or released and await trial to determine their asylum claim. None are there by force, it is temporary to process them.
The CCP takes people from their population by force and keeps them in work camps. Notably they take people just for being an ethnic minority. This is all without trial by jury.
About the US immigration centres --- I am not sure if those who suffered there would had come to those camps if they had knew what's happening in them, especially the children.
Bonus points if it's equivalent to GENOCIDE, which is what the ONGOING human rights violation in China is.
The data going to them helps them continue this GENOCIDE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide_of_Uyghurs
You like linking to wikipedia, which article from the list you linked is equivalent to my link?
Must meet the requirements of it being CURRENT and caused by the government DIRECTLY.
All cultures have a bad and violent history. What matters is your current morals.
The CCP is doing this to their Uighur population. Do you not see the difference in extremes?
Only one superpower right now is committing GENOCIDE against it's ethnic minorities.
You can downplay that as much as you want, and spit all the whataboutism you want, but it's still the truth.
> En ze doen nog een ernstige ontdekking. De zes Chinese medewerkers werken met een programma dat hen in staat stelt om elk telefoongesprek dat via KPN gaat mee te luisteren. Ook dat is in strijd met afspraken. Deze mogelijkheid houdt in dat Huawei-medewerkers waar ook ter wereld KPN-nummers kunnen meeluisteren. Dat betekent dat ze delen van het gesprek of het hele gesprek kunnen volgen zonder dat de bellers of iemand bij KPN op de hoogte is.
> Huawei heeft contractueel de mogelijkheid om voor kwaliteitsdoeleinden een gesprek kortstondig – enkele seconden – te volgen, dat heet inluisteren. Het hele gesprek volgen – meeluisteren – is verboden. Een bron: ‘Ze konden nummers tappen, ze konden overal ter wereld meeluisteren, KPN had geen idee wat Huawei op het netwerk deed.’
They could tap phones from all over the world. KPN had no idea what Huawei did on their network.
It's more like a locksmith coming into your home because you asked him to manage the locks and ensure they were in working condition... and surprise he keeps them in working condition.
In other news, USA asks Cisco to build routers for NSA network and accuses NSA of having too much access, which they could have used.
They may have eavesdropped, because they had an application that could listen to every phone call on the KPN network. Which was forbidden.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle...
It says that they could tap phone-calls in KPN's network anytime and anywhere without anyone knowing.
It's not what it states. It says that Huawei does the core of the mobile network ( eg. switches). If they want access, they have to ask it and they will generate a security code.
> Als Huawei erbij wil, moet het bedrijf bij het Netwerk Operations Center van KPN een veiligheidscode aanvragen. Daarna bereiden technici van KPN de toegang voor. Alleen dan kan Huawei in het hart van het netwerk.
But Huawei seems to get access from China outside of this procedure.
> Maar het gaat toch verkeerd. Huawei blijkt zich buiten de procedure om vanuit China toegang tot de kern van het netwerk te verschaffen. Veiligheidsmensen van KPN weten dat dit gebeurt, maar doen niets. ‘Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden’, vermeldt het rapport in april 2010.
They found an additional serious breach. A program to listen to every phone call within the network of KPN.
> zes Chinese medewerkers werken met een programma dat hen in staat stelt om elk telefoongesprek dat via KPN gaat mee te luisteren. Ook dat is in strijd met afspraken.
Listening to an entire phone call is forbidden.
> Huawei heeft contractueel de mogelijkheid om voor kwaliteitsdoeleinden een gesprek kortstondig – enkele seconden – te volgen, dat heet inluisteren. Het hele gesprek volgen – meeluisteren – is verboden.
Source: the original article from the volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle...