
Huawei Technicians Helped African Governments Spy on Political Opponents - Bostonian
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-technicians-helped-african-governments-spy-on-political-opponents-11565793017?mod=rsswn
======
motohagiography
Huawei will likely become the main competition for NSO group and companies
like it, but that's the least of the worlds worries.

Governments with resource wealth don't need large public services that would
operate a sophisticated intelligence service, so they outsource it. So far
these governments have been doing point targeting against dissidents w/
mercenary surveillance companies, but it's possible these companies are about
to be steamrolled by one that implements their products as a free feature of
their entire infrastructure.

The bargain will be, we'll support your campaign/coup and modernize your
infrastructure for your people, while giving you intel we collect on your
dissidents and opposition. Then, once Huawei infrastructure is ensconced, no
government will get into power who does not have support from China. A very
"harmonious," cycle. Want be be elected again? Secure our rights to extract
rare earth minerals. Etc.

The company is a projection of Chinese state power, not unlike western telcoms
with 5EYES and the ITU has been. The difference is the Party lacks the
sentimentality of western countries when it comes to issues of total
surveillance and intervention to maintain control. (Albeit, we have never been
above supporting butchers either, so YMMV.)

My prediction is that once the Huawei gear is in place, a country's political
class will turn to face east on policy and resource questions. It's pure
leverage. Western tech companies can't make the same promises to those
governments either. It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi
Amin, but Huawei doesn't have that constraint. So far, the world has been
content to deal with the devil it knows.

Anyway, I'd say this article is an anecdote of a larger geopolitical shift.
Containing Huawei should be a national security priority for everyone, but
tbh, it's looking more and more like our respective mere leviathans have
become oversized, slow moving prey for their hydra.

~~~
ivanhoe
In Serbia it was primarily Israelis who sold all of the surveillance tech to
the government, and now China seems to be pushing everyone else out of the
market. It really makes a very little difference to common people, one foreign
actor or the other, none of the sides is really altruistic in that game...

~~~
close04
I think this is the real problem: China/Huawei are pushing their competition
out of the "support an (oppressive) regime" business. They become the go-to
partner for regimes that historically relied on western or middle-eastern
partners maintaining their authority.

~~~
cm2187
Maybe merely a quality choice! If you want to buy a nice car, you go for a
German brand, if you want fine wine, go French, if you want software, go
American, if you want an orwellian mass surveillance system, you go with the
country which speciality it is!

~~~
close04
> if you want an orwellian mass surveillance system

I think this misses the point. Countries like US or Israel are perfectly
capable [0][1][2] of offering such systems. And they do because it gives them
another solid "string" attached to the regime receiving it. Their problem is
that now the string (and all the knowledge, power, influence that come with
it) could go to China. Hence the campaign to discredit them simply by
suggesting this behavior is limited to them. Putting the facts in perspective
would undermine this.

[0] [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-
israel...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel-s-
cyber-spy-industry-aids-dictators-hunt-dissidents-and-gays-1.6573027)

[1] [https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/report-saudi-
arabia...](https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/report-saudi-arabia-used-
israeli-tech-to-try-and-track-dissident-in-canada-1.6517064)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-us-
sur...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-us-surveillance-
technology-is-propping-up-authoritarian-regimes/)

------
weq
TDLR; Company owned by oppressive regime helps other oppressive regimes
prosper in exchange for unfetted access to the countries resources.

There is news here. But its not about spying.

[https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-
asset...](https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/03/06/ugandas-main-assets-taken-
over-huge-unpaid-chinese-loans-and-dept/)

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chin...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2134438/chinas-
fishing-industry-dwarfs-rest-worlds-study-suggests)

~~~
jimclegg
Shocking that Israel barely gets a mention in this article (you know, the
actual supplier of the surveillance tech used).

So we just ignore that Israeli companies sell spy tech to every corrupt
government on the planet and instead focus on demonizing Huawei giving
Africans cheap 5G?

Trade war inspired reporting, not surprising coming from the Murdoch rag WSJ.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>A pop star turned political sensation, Bobi Wine, had returned from
Washington with U.S. backing for his opposition movement, and Uganda’s cyber-
surveillance unit had strict orders to intercept his encrypted communications,
using the broad powers of a 2010 law that gives the government the ability “to
secure its multidimensional interests.”

I suspect that most countries would try to intercept the communications of an
opposition candidate that was openly backed by a foreign power.

~~~
justicezyx
The assumption of the author and many people or even majority is that backing
by USA is not only legitimate, it's also morally superior.

~~~
pryce
The obvious ethical territory here isn't particularly difficult: deploring
both the US action (in this case political interference) and the Huawei/CCP
interference (political interference via an attack on civil liberties).

Commentators who are only interested in critiquing rival states ought to be
viewed as discrediting themselves.

------
Nokinside
Mobile networks can be considered strategic infrastructure. Normally US State
Department would be working closely with US companies to push back against
Huawei with all kinds of political tie-ins and perks.

Except that the US is not in the market. US based mobile network
infrastructure assets (Lucent Technologies and Motorola's wireless network
infrastructure business) were sold to Europeans long time ago. Both of them
are part of Nokia today. Nokia and Ericsson compete without government support
against China backed Huawei and ZTE.

Huawei is most likely government owned/controlled enterprise:

Balding, Christopher and Clarke, Donald C., Who Owns Huawei? (April 17, 2019).
Available at SSRN:
[https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669](https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372669) or
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669](http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669)

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
No, there's no indication whatsoever that Huawei is government-owned. Stop
spreading FUD. There are plenty of state-owned enterprises in China, but
Huawei isn't one of them.

~~~
C1sc0cat
That is what is some times called "Not readily believable" Huawei certainly
isn't a worker coop as it claims.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
The objection in the article is that the workers don't directly own shares.
It's still a company in which workers vote and share in the profits. They just
can't sell their stake on the market.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Still not a coop one member one vote is the rule

------
jjgreen
The Reg nails this:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_repor...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/15/huawei_uganda_report/)

~~~
RustyRussell
That was fantastic, thanks. I feel that would have made a better HN submission
itself.

------
heisenbit
Mobile infrastructure provider are almost always delivering tech to monitor
phone locations and communications. It is not unreasonable to expect them to
support of such equipment. What would you do if your job is to support the
sold and euphemistically called ‚lawful interception gateway‘ in a place with
loose laws? This is mostly dual use tech.

~~~
Nokinside
Wassenaar Agreement has export controls on surveillance tools but it's very
loose and not legally binding. China is not a member.

------
ETHisso2017
Seems these activities were conducted without Huawei corporate being aware or
involved. Still an embarrassing compliance failure on their part.

~~~
throw7
I'm sure huawei corporate is correcting the issue right now. /s

But who do you think trained the ugandan cyber-surveillance team in the first
place?

You can piece it together from the article: They had pegasus and were trained
by the israeli company (probably not an advanced version... the one that just
parses unencrypted comms). But they even said it was simplistic and
needed/wanted more. Of course Huawei trained them. When they were unable to
"punch" through with the "pegasus-style" spyware themselves, they strolled up
to their teachers and said help us senpai.

~~~
adinobro
Maybe it was an ex-Cisco employee? They helped China in the first place and
the Huawei hardware is almost the same.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-
attempt-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-
dodge-responsibility-facilitating-human-rights-abuses-export)

I don't know if the Chinese firewall has been upgraded to Chinese hardware or
if it is still running on US hardware. This kind of hardware often last for
10+ years so I would not be surprised if the hardware is still mostly from
Cisco.

------
Multicomp
I wonder if things would be different if this individual was using, say,
Signal, Conversations.im with omemo enabled, Briar, Wire, Threema, or other
related e2ee enabled application. WhatsApp et al just have less security
overall.

------
rdlecler1
What’s their corporate culture slogan, “Be evil”?

~~~
tedeh
Speak no evil

------
sbhn
I thought it was facebook who helped cambridge analytica,

------
aussieguy1234
The best way to stop companies doing unethical things like this is to vote
with your wallet, buy your stuff elsewhere. Use a good online list to pre-
screen companies before you buy from them like
[https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-
criti...](https://www.ethical.org.au/3.4.2/get-informed/boycotts-criticisms/)

