
How the United States threatens our security - kowabit
https://www.kowabit.de/how-the-united-states-threatens-our-security/
======
erentz
I’m kind of surprised by the response here. For one thing this helps European
telecoms suppliers. On top of this there is this weird expectation that the
way things have been is good and should continue. I don’t see this justified.
Huawei exists in large part because of the history of the US opening it’s
markets to China which helped the Chinese economy grow immensely (not to
mention copying Cisco).

I’m not going to defend the US on everything but it has its own interests and
nobody should be surprised over the coming decades if it starts closing off
its market and withdrawing its guarantees on securing other countries trade.

Europe has had a lot of time to grow up and should at this point realize this
probable future and decide what such a future means for it, and decide how it
wants to present itself in such a world.

~~~
klingonopera
Exactly. When the going gets rough, the US is just as willing as any other
authoritarian state to sacrifice all justice, friendship, goodwill and
fairplay to secure their profits.

Why should the EU follow the US into their dirty game? The first 70 years
after war, the US at least tried to keep the illusion of being decent. Now
everything's an all-out free-for-all, and EU should be looking after
themselves than the interests of somebody else.

~~~
trickstra
US is also threatening to stop business with whoever doesn't ban Huawei, so
that's why

~~~
emn13
Without trying to imply some kind of opinion as to Huawei or Trump here: I
don't think that's a serious threat.

It's one thing to make a lot of tough-looking noise as a matter of
protectionism to curry favor with voters thus protected - it's quite another
to actually hurt those same voter's economic interest fairly quickly without
clear, short-term benefit. In other words: protection classical industry makes
some sense politically (whether or not it's a good idea), setting off a real
trade war with your allies when you're also in a trade war with china makes no
sense at all.

Also, I doubt Trump needs to. He's quite capable of harassing Huawei without
much foreign support. Why risk a recession - and thus reelection - if you
don't have too?

------
qaq
For mobile telecom equipment: 1 Huawei 2 Ericsson 3 Nokia

How helping out 2 of the largest actually competitive companies in EU to gain
more market share in US threatens EU security is beyond me

~~~
emn13
It may help those two firms, but the point isn't to make these two private
entities _rich_ it's national (and union) security: Huawei's existing
customers - which exist in the US, but particularly in the EU - must now rely
on a partner that through government fiat suddenly cannot be a reliable
partner anymore.

Also remarkable is how little power has to do anything about it. If they
wanted to ensure continued reliability of existing infrastructure and
infrastructure investments they can... try to nationlize huwawei's relevant
IP? Nationalize Google's relevant IP? Both are extremely far-fetched, not to
mention the fact that it's not just a matter of IP - replicating those
companies respective skillsets probably isn't even feasible. The executive
order could probably be subverted by passing along whatever info/IP huwawei
needs since that info is likely also present in places outside of US reach,
but that threatens escalation (and it's possible EU leaders don't trust huawei
either, so they might not even want to do that, even if they could).

Additionally, the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because
there is _less_ competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-
owned) firms is pretty absurd. Less competition is almost certainly _bad_ for
the EU (and the US), regardless of who gets rich, simply becuase there are
vastly more and more important users of this network tech than there are
sellers. A nepotistic short-term win won't even budge the GDP needle, but
reduced innovation in tech might.

However little empathy you might have for Huawei's shareholders, the
consequences for their clients at the very least bear pause.

~~~
duxup
>the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is
less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is
pretty absurd

Distantly that has been part of the argument that somehow that allows for the
EU to legislate the internet as it has .... but considering the legislation
I'm not sure it has proven to be a positive.

~~~
emn13
Where did anybody argue that "regulating the internet" is a good idea because
it reduces competition for EU-headquartered international companies?

Oh well, people say crazy things sometimes. It's definitely a bad motivation -
I don't think it's even remotely relevant as a practical motivation however,
not least because there's just not a lot of upside to be had.

~~~
duxup
The idea has been put forth here and other places quite a few times that a lot
of the recent EU regulation exists because of a lack of influence of those
companies.

Granted, you also would want to belive those regulations and laws are good
things to enjoy that argument.

I agree it is a strange POV. If anything I'm pointing out how kinda terrible
that is as an argument.

------
OliverJones
There's a part of USA culture that thrives on cold-war-style paranoia. It's in
conflict with another part of our culture that thrives on openness and
cooperation.

The paranoid part of our culture is in ascendance in these decades (partly due
to the success of malicious state actors exploiting our openness and
cooperation.)

This has been a back-and-forth struggle for much of the USA's history. It's
never static. This balance will continue to change in future.

In the meantime, of course, it's helpful to their careers for politicians to
stir up fear of ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties and things that
go bump in the night.

~~~
geggam
You do realize things do go bump in the night ? The world isnt all that nice.

~~~
teddyh
And that’s why the military and intelligence agencies get funding. But what
good does it do to get _the general public_ scared and worked up about these
issues?

~~~
duxup
Voters should know what is going on.

~~~
teddyh
There’s a vast difference in making information available and to “stir up fear
of ghoulies and ghosties”.

~~~
duxup
How do you define “stir up fear of ghoulies and ghosties”?

Concerns you personally don't share?

------
Isinlor
> China itself could, of course, also impose bans on American producers and
> products. A stand-still would possibly bring peace again.

I think we are missing something here. China is already banning western
services. No mainland Chinese person is using Google directly. No Outlook,
Gmail, Facebook, Skype, AppStore, Google Play, etc. I don't think they can ban
USA services even more.

China can only ban exporting to USA, but it's like cutting off your own legs
to make a point. In a certain sense, China is losing the game they started a
long time ago.

While Europe... Well, we are a total disaster in the IT sector anyway. Nobody
gives a damn about the EU.

------
pasabagi
Realistically, the best bet for Europe is to play the part of the USA in the
lead-up to WW1. By remaining unaligned with either the axis or the allies
until the war was essentially decided, they came out of the conflict as the
sole winners.

Unfortunately, I expect that the EU will stick with the US, and get dragged
into whatever that entails. I hope that the world has changed enough that
total war between incumbent and upstart great powers isn't possible - but I
don't really see any clear reasons why it shouldn't happen.

What I hope is that China is aware of the parallels between their situation
and the situation of pre-WW1 Germany, or pre-WW2 Japan, and goes a different
route. If they simply wait, focus on soft power, and ignore all provocations,
they'll no doubt end up taking the USA's place.

~~~
bouncycastle
In the book, "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" by George
Friedman, the author predicts that China will start to fragment. Although this
hasn't been happening probably because of the increase in strict authoritarian
rule. Perhaps this trade war will intensify the pressure until some kind of
uprising against the authoritarian rule emerges. Besides, China is more keen
on keeping economic harmony than fighting a war. History has shown us what
happens when its citizens aren't happy time and again.

------
foreigner
I find it amusing that the US is accusing Huawei of doing to the US for China
exactly what Xerox did to the USSR for the US.

~~~
jedberg
"Something something it's righteous when we do it but evil when they do it"

~~~
CharlesColeman
> "Something something it's righteous when we do it but evil when they do it"

That's too simplistic a take. There's a moral angle that you're missing:
"they" are authoritarians with terrible human rights records (see: Dissidents,
treatment of), "we" are a liberal democracy that's quite a bit better at human
rights (though not perfect).

------
ErikCorry
The good news is that Huawei already sucked at making security updates and
even claimed to have updated, but hadn't, so it's no huge loss.
[https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed-
secur...](https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed-security-
updates-from-you/)

~~~
ErikCorry
Here's another part of the story. Huawei were not able to show what they used
to build their software. When they tried, the end result did not match the
source code they said they were using: [https://commsrisk.com/interpreting-
huaweis-failed-uk-securit...](https://commsrisk.com/interpreting-huaweis-
failed-uk-security-audit/)

~~~
craigsmansion
Fair enough, but reproducible builds are hard, especially on an OS scale.

And I'm all for demanding verifiability, but why should manufacturers from
particular regions be singled out? Just because the US is trying to fan their
domestic "reds under the bed" paranoia for political reasons?

~~~
mendelmaleh
I don't agree. Android builds aren't that big

------
scandox
In terms of the monster I want living in my attic, I won't swap the US for
China any day soon.

~~~
klingonopera
But we only have a monster in the attic, because we choose to choose one of
those two.

I believe that's the point the article is trying to make: That the EU should
stand up and be an actual 3rd party and possibly mediate between China and
USA. But then the article also concludes that it's not surprising that doesn't
happen considering the parties in Europe.

~~~
duxup
What would "mediate" mean?

The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns.

~~~
demarq
why do you think that?

~~~
oytis
Really, German government even failed to see any security threat in Kaspersky
Antivirus on computers of public servicemen, and it is literally a backdoor
for the Russian secret services.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
How is this different from using an OS that sends the names of the files you
have accessed to a foreign country if you don't use its enterprise version or
have misconfigured it? A situation that is true throughout public services and
across your entire country's industry.

~~~
oytis
Not quite sure what you're referring to. They also failed to replace MS
products with open-source alternatives, because, you know, the icons are on
the wrong places.

------
markvdb
Let's hope this mess brings us at least a stronger FOSS mobile ecosystem...

~~~
omeid2
Free Open Source Software is easy, Free Open Source Services are harder, not
impossible (OpenStreet Maps, Wikipedia, IRC (Freenode specifically)), but it
is really hard because the cost increases with users unlike software. And what
Google brings is service, very reliable and high quality one at that, though
the history of Google search quality is up to debate as of recent.

------
Alir3z4
Good luck hearing anything from EU.

EU should get permission from US to buy gas & energy or who to deal and
business with, such a joke!

------
newaccoutnas
I'm not sure I agree on the last part re: LineageOS et al. They've not failed,
they don't gain traction as it's more difficult to install them (in the case
of aftermarket firmwares) due to having to gain root. For Purism or
hardware+os combos, then they've not got the same market share or share of
mindset. If a big player made a (truely) open Android, I'm sure there would be
people all over it. If they went down this path, it may actually open up the
Android ecosystem. (then again, the hardware still probably wouldn't be
completely open)

~~~
mcv
How does OnePlus's Oxygen OS fit into this? I believe it's based on Cyanogen,
which is an open version of Android which, if I recall correctly, was not
allowed to distribute the proprietary parts of Android.

So doesn't a big, open version of Android already exist there? Or is it just
as tied to Google as stock Android is?

~~~
msadowski
Honestly while using OnePlus Two I didn't feel it being open at all. In fact I
have a very strong suspicion that OnePlus is using OS updates as planned
obsolescence.

One day my OnePlus Two installed the system upgrade causing the battery to
fully drain in a span of 30 minutes - 2 hours and the phone getting super hot
while idle. I tried doing all the recommended steps of fixing the problem
(clearing cache, factory resets etc.) without any improvement.

As soon as I installed Lineage OS I started getting a 24+ hr battery life and
didn't experience any issues so the issue was not related to hardware.

~~~
newaccoutnas
There was the instance a couple of years back whereby they were sending lots
of data back to base, made me very dubious of them since.

~~~
mcv
My Fairphone had an issue a couple of month where it managed to use a couple
of GB in a matter of minutes and drained my data subscription. I still don't
know why, but I think it's a genuine bug, and not anyone trying to steal my
data.

That said, I would prefer an OS that provably puts my in charge and doesn't
allow foreign companies access to everything I've got. Then again, I also like
convenience.

------
timwaagh
i do not know what the espionage evidence was. it must have been a lot to
throw a lot of european consumers under the bus like this. definitely an issue
for diplomats, but it could in the long run lead to more competition on the
software markets, with neutral play store clones gaining a foothold.

------
rado
Don't tell me there is also a single country that controls the global (oil-
trading) currency?

~~~
gnode
Most oil trading is done in US dollars, but by no means all. It's a convenient
and popular unit of account for international trading, but the Euro and Yuan
are used too.

------
njepa
I don't disagree, but I think the perspective is a bit weird. Especially this
part:

>But the fact that the market power of the Americans has such a big influence
is our own fault. European governments have failed to create framework
conditions to create competition here as well. If you know which parties in
Europe are in charge, it is not surprising.

Europeans have been specifically willing to let the US and China dominate
these markets. Most of Europe literally relies on the US for their security
with NATO. Many of our companies have been sold to China, or are manufacturing
in China. Of course we can't have our cake an eat it too. (Unless it is
something like this that you meant).

~~~
luckylion
I agree, and I understand the OP to say that as well.

I don't know if it is/was incompetence to not support domestic industries, or
the wish to not anger the US by competing on this area, or something else, I
don't know. I believe most of these areas (the hardware, the software, the
services) are of such high importance that is indeed of national (talking EU
wide) interest to not have to rely on foreign interests.

We trust Google to not unfairly kill hardware vendors, to not manipulate
search results, but ultimately, we're powerless if they do, and having to
"trust" a foreign government on these essential things sounds bad. Whether
it's China or the US ("America has no permanent friends or enemies, only
interests") is secondary imho. Yes, we have better relations with the US, but
who can tell whether our interests will align 10 or 20 years down the road?

------
JackPoach
Yes, EU kind of 'outsourced' large part of technical platforms to US much like
what happened to NATO (many european countries don't have real military forces
to speak of and rely on US armed forces for protection). EU has no search
engine to speak of. European antiviruses are a joke. There's no european
'office suite' that I know of. Should the United States apply the pressure,
Europe has very little to counter the pressure with.

~~~
threeseed
Qwant.com is European.

And very European in that it favours user privacy.

~~~
klingonopera
Yeah, but last I checked, I think half a year ago, they were (still?) getting
their results piped from Microsoft's Bing search engine.

I'd find it more important to develop the search engine technology than to,
well... just rebrand another US search engine, essentially...

~~~
wvh
The problem with some of these European initiatives is that they sound more
like a political project than a technical one. Lots of "values" being
discussed – granted, decent values to support – but very little technology.

Perhaps I'm too jaded an engineer, but if a solid product or technical idea
isn't at the base of a project, no amount of values and goodwill is going to
glue it together into a reliable working whole.

------
stareatgoats
I feel most of the comments here don't correctly lasso this on a fundamental
level. This article describes a single data-point in a context where
protectionism becomes a guiding policy principle. The world coalesces (will
coalesce) in economic alliances with military power to back their interests,
and it is an extremely dangerous path.

To people who want to point fingers at individual players, saying "it is the
fault of Trump, (China, Putin or whoever)" please don't, unless you want to be
part of the warmongering hysteria that lies ahead.

It's not anyone's fault, this is just the result of economic and political
history. What we need is to make sure this doesn't end in a man-made
catastrophe, larger than anything hitherto.

------
duxup
Considering the spotty nature of updates as it is... I'm not sure I buy into
the idea this is a dramatic change as far as risk goes.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
> By order of the American government, Google must now end its Android support
> for Huawei.

Google will continue to support existing Huawei phones.

~~~
vinay427
To provide a source here:
[https://twitter.com/Android/status/1130313848332988421](https://twitter.com/Android/status/1130313848332988421)

Resulting article: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/19/google-says-its-app-
store-...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/19/google-says-its-app-store-will-
continue-to-work-for-existing-huawei-smartphone-owners/)

------
mendelmaleh
(un)ironically, Huawei recently stopped allowing bootloader unlocking, now
they will probably have to use AOSP

------
ak39
AppStore? Or did they mean Google Play?

~~~
kowabit
AppStore ... Better for understanding for the most Readers.

But you are right. Google Play Store.

------
chkaloon
After reading this, it occurs to me that a side effect might be the EU getting
its act together and provide some real competition to US tech dominance. I
would consider that a good thing. Not sure that's what Trump intends...

~~~
Nasrudith
I would love to see that but I doubt it would happen - there seem to be major
cultural problems holding the EU back - which is something that isn't unique
to them - every nation has their own frankly stupid cultural dysfunctions
which if addressed could make things so much better for everyone at no real
cost except selfish and irrelevant vested interests.

The EU nations are generally far too protectionist and unwilling to allow
disruption or breaking of fiefdoms - just changing where ancient province
lines for agriculture regions fills them with rage - let alone absurd. Then
there are the issues with German publishers and Spanish newspapers.

Until that changes they will unfortunately fail to have more than a relatively
minor presence - they really should have a larger tech industry for their size
and educated population base.

------
oytis
Quite disappointing that German anti-Americanism goes as far as siding with
China. And quite ironic that the author plays the Trump card, who has gained a
lot of his notoriety by having ties to another authoritarian regime.

~~~
klingonopera
I don't find the author is siding with China, I find he's playing fair.

Everything (?) the US accuses China, the EU could accuse the US of as well.

I'm guessing it's for historical reasons things are the way they are now, and
because of economic inertia that this has yet to change.

I don't want to be pro-China nor pro-US. But I see two people wanting to sell
me something, and one of them is trying to stop me from buying the better
product.

~~~
oytis
Siding as in not morally but practically - doing/willing to do things that
favor someone, not necessarily liking someone.

> But I see two people wanting to sell me something, and one of them is trying
> to stop me from buying the better product.

This willingness to compromise on global security for a little profit is
siding to me. Exactly the same willingness as in Gazprom/NordStream case if
you follow the topic.

> Everything (?) the US accuses China, the EU could accuse the US of as well.

It could, but what the author seems to propose is tolerating China's
violations, not opposing these of US (which EU couldn't realistically do
anyway).

~~~
Nasrudith
To be fair "global security" has been cried wolf about enough given its use as
a scurtiny terminating cliche for reasons that are irrelevant like
embarrassment to officials that it could be replaced with "nothing" and have
approximately the same meaning. If you don't trust the message the argument
goes the other direction it becomes "compromising nothing for a little
profit". Why leave money om the table for the sake of a known bad actor?

If you sincerely believe it that loss of credibility should be deeply
troubling. If you don't it is as it should be - they lost their abused cudgel
and can deal with it.

------
lovetocode
Because Europe is the bastion of morality.

~~~
gsich
It is.

~~~
julienreszka
No morality without free speech.

------
3327
the US cannot disclose why as that would disclose capability used in detection
that would teach the others how to circumvent it.

I for one support the decision and would rather have my data and whereabouts
in the hands of the USA rather than CHINA.

~~~
ggm
What does China do with your data that the US government doesn't do?

