US congress rules Huawei a 'security threat'
brisbanetimes.com.au
brisbanetimes.com.au
A Cisco to watch all of the packets produced by the Huawei and a Huawei to watch all of the packets produced by the Cisco. Any packet they don't agree on, gets dropped. Welcome the geopolitical AND gate.
Unlike U.S. telecoms, which are totally free of influence from Washington.
A novel thought. But history and current events suggests it doesn't often play out that way.
You just wind up with multiple groups seeking influence, with infighting limited to squabbling for control over that influence rather than attempts to erode it.
e.g. You get several branches of government [1] violating the fourth amendment, all for their own purposes, with occasional questions raised about who should be doing the violating, but little 'serious' talk about whether it should be done.
[1] FBI, CIA, DHS, NSA -- who isn't invading the privacy of US citizens these days?
As a Chinese, I don't find this story very farfetched. If a company is deep in bed with the Chinese government, I wouldn't trust them any further than I can throw them - the level of governmental influence over private industry is far more substantial than what happens in the US.
Indian Home Ministry also suspects the Chinese military being behind Huawei.
In fact a major controversy ongoing here is the allotment of telecom licenses (which were later squashed by the courts) to companies dependent Huawei.
I fail to see how Huawei can be any more of a security threat than companies such as Broadcom or Cisco.
If Huawei has indeed acted in bad faith, then make their actions public so other nations/institutions avoid them. Otherwise, this will (and does) seem like a political/financial play.
What if laying out the evidence implicitly compromises the only window into Huawei's alleged operations? Is it more important to try and win the public over, or to keep your advantage?
And would/could the public even be convinced? How many times has the US government warned about the security risks of partnerships with Chinese firms? How many cautionary tales do we have/need? After Boeing, Google, et al were very publicly compromised and all leaked data pointed to Beijing ... the evidence was all but dismissed by those with a direct financial incentive to ignore it.
Why would another round of that be of any use?
1. Huawei (like many Chinese companies) works in close partnership with the Chinese government, which has subsidized many of its processes.
2. Huawei may be stealing IP from U.S. based companies
3. The U.S. is totally reliant on foreign companies for swaths of our communications infrastructure (which would be unsettling to a Congressional committee)
4. Then again, just because U.S. companies and the government were asleep at the wheel when it came to these technologies, does that mean we get to be choosy beggars? Is Huawei a threat to security or just a threat to the economy?
Huawei's been around in the States forever, and I'm certain they have countless government contracts in place of varying sensitivity. Call me a paranoid, but a month before the elections, I tend to question every newsbit I see and hear as being politically motivated for personal gain.
He didn't say it was easy.
It's reasonable to worry about security in telecommunications, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any telecom that doesn't manufacture equipment in China including Ericsson, Huawei's biggest competitor. Huawei has too much to lose from spying, and I'd personally be more worried about these non-Chinese companies which rely so heavily on Chinese subsidies and subcontracting.
One legitimate concern about Huawei though is transparency. Because it is privately held and not listed on any stock market, it is not subject to reporting requirements and it's ownership structure is allowed to remain secretive. However, these aren't grounds for an outright ban.
I think this assumption is pretty much incorrect. Corporate liabilities in China are not like corporate liabilities in the western world.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/global/15iht-tele...
The U.S. government could be a threat to China; it's obvious China will do what it takes to counter that threat. Of course China won't sabotage U.S. infrastructure without provocation, but I think the U.S. won't accept that they have the potential.
I think there are some legitimate concerns. The other competitors aren't known to have the level of corporate espionage as Huawei has shown, the level of direct government influence, and telecom is gaining importance in national security.
Manufacturing equipment in China and producing Telecom equipment and software are different concepts for security. For example, all telecom equipment in the US has to allow "lawful intercept"[1], and part of LI is it cannot be detected whether it is enabled or not. I think if an issue was to escalate to the level of national security, both the US and China would be willing to make use of these features. I'm more willing to believe that China would build in their own form of LI without publicizing it, since the government is more directly involved in the decisions of ZTE/Huawei. If the next front of war is on the internet, this is a considerable risk.
From what I understand - the Chinese government has the ability to say "If you don't drop the suit against [Chinese Company] we will block your product sales in China". I can't find a source, but I remember hearing a similar incident.
This idea is also not new - India is on a similar path to locally source telecom equipment: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-15/news...
Interestingly, I've heard that although the LI is supposed to be transparent, it's typically very apparent to network operators when their kit is actively involved in LI, as the CPU utilization shows telltale signs.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/09/28/obama-block...
The report here warns federal government procurement offices to avoid purchasing Huawei and ZTE equipment, and also recommends that private-sector companies avoid doing so. But the second recommendation has no teeth at all, and even the first part isn't strictly binding on the executive branch's procurement policies (it's not an actual passed bill, just a report issued by a committee).
The problem is that countries like China disrupt the free market in ways that are hard to combat -- currency games and subsidies for its own industries, for example.
But the main problem is simple and obvious: As long as we have things like a high minimum wage, environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc., we will be at a disadvantage against countries that don't.
If you've ever played any complex-economy strategy games (Dwarf Fortress, Settlers of Catan, Colonization, Imperialism, and Victoria come to mind), the common theme I've found is that being self-sufficient makes you very powerful.
My conclusion: There's nothing wrong with protectionism, and our pro-globalization economic policies since the 1970's have simply been wrongheaded.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424702n
(available everywhere)