
Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat? - symisc_devel
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/26/is-huawei-a-national-security-threat/
======
TACIXAT
>That’s the crux of the argument: nobody thinks Huawei is spying now. To get
caught would be too dangerous. But nobody knows that it won’t spy in the
future.

Huawei was implicated in the hack on the African Union. [1,2] Now, that hasn't
been proven anywhere, nor have they been formally accused, but it came up when
Australia dropped them for 5G.

1\. [https://outline.com/WfCzFe](https://outline.com/WfCzFe) (same as [2],
outlined) 2\. [https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
affairs/national-s...](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
affairs/national-security/china-used-huawei-to-hack-network-says-secret-
report/news-story/510d3b17c2791cbcac18f047c64ab9d8)

~~~
altmind
(Thank you for outline link, its a great service!)

Quoting the same article

> There’s no proof that Huawei was asked to participate or turn a blind eye to
> the breach, but we know that there was a breach and Huawei was the key
> provider

(The article mentions ZTE, that was also hardware provider, but did not put
the blame on them?)

This link also mentions that the AU HQ was bugged with microphones(the
compound was build by chinese subcontractors) that implies, that if attack was
real, it involved more than mere cloud service and wifi provider
[https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-
headquar...](https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquarters-
hack-and-australias-5g-network/)

But in general, the sources are not verifiable - the Le Monde itself, that
seems to be the source, didnt mention huawei at all, the article quoted in
parent comment mentions "australian national security source"
[https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-
ab...](https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-abeba-le-
siege-de-l-union-africaine-espionne-par-les-chinois_5247521_3212.html)

------
creato
I find it irritating how the tech world conversation about this seems to
center around "proof". This is not a court of law, it's not innocent until
proven guilty. The bar for decision making on this issue is not "beyond an
unreasonable doubt".

We're talking about letting a company under the control of China, the country
responsible for ongoing mass-scale industrial espionage at every level of our
economy, build the core communications network for our country. It's insanity
that it's even open for discussion.

~~~
will_wheat_on
You realise that’s how the rest of the world views the US? The US spies on the
rest of the world; Cisco etc install back doors. The US was spying on Angela
Merkel. For the emerging world, this is good, there’s finally a counterbalance
to the NSA and US tech companies mass surveillance. The US isn’t the world’s
largest economy anymore (PPP adjusted, soon to be in nominal terms as well.)
so this idea that the rules of the game don’t apply to the US is past it’s
sell by date. To someone with privilege, equality seems like oppression.

~~~
threeseed
This false equivalence is just ridiculous.

The US may spy on other countries. Sure. Every country does. But it's what
they do with the data that is important. Does the US have a social credit
system ? Do they have a mass "re-education" program for people who have said
anything critical of the government ? Do they do what they want without any
checks and balances (journalism, courts, laws) etc ?

China, I would remind you, is a dictatorship not a democracy. And the only way
it remains that way is by using data to stamp out dissension. It's a
completely differently situation to the US or frankly every other Western
country.

For example look at what happens to Australian citizens in China based on what
they say about the government:

[https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/detention-of-an-
australian...](https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/detention-of-an-australian-
in-china-is-canberra-s-worst-nightmare-20190123-p50t3f.html)

~~~
colordrops
The terms "false equivalence" and "whataboutism" and "ridiculous" are just
labels and devoid of facts or reasoning.

The truth is that the US is far more imperialistic and murderous than any
other nation on earth, including China. Assuming you live in the US, you are
blinded by living in the belly of the beast.

edit: Also, if you don't think the US uses data to stamp out dissent, you are
simply ignorant. Just look up COINTELPRO, which is just one of many official
anti-dissent programs. You could almost say it's the FBI's job to stamp out
dissent. And that's not getting into covert information techniques, such as
CIA operatives at most major news outlets, and in modern times, social media
manipulation.

See: [https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-
ti...](https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-
reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/)

~~~
ztratar
During US superpower hegemony, the world has seen the least amount of violence
in its entire history.

~~~
changchuming
Well US is no longer a superpower hegemony, and violence is still decreasing,
so I wouldn't say it's a cause and effect thing.

------
infinity0
> [..] but there was no smoking gun that proved that the company was spying —
> only that it could at the request of Beijing. [China] doesn’t have a single
> law that can compel a company to spy on its behalf or put backdoors in its
> products [..] the government doesn’t need a law

> Yet ironically, it’s the U.S. and the U.K. — and more recently Australia —
> that have laws in place that can in fact compel a company to turn over data,
> or force a company to install backdoors.

Indeed, western national security politics is schizoprenic and hypocritical
and can't be taken seriously.

Instead of worrying specifically so much about Huawei, put funding towards
developing secure communications technologies that render backdoors in
communications backbones obsolete. This would also protect your own citizens
against your own overreaching intelligence services.

------
natch
From the article:

>Only this week, the U.S. said it doesn’t need to show proof, citing the
company’s ability to be "leveraged by the Chinese government."

This is actually a valid argument. The leverage is all that is needed for
there to be a real threat.

However, it is also another reason responsible countries, which could include
the US if it wants to be one <cough>, should not allow the creation of laws
that would give them analogous leverage over equipment makers in their own
countries.

In other words, no back doors, and no "it's not a back door because we call it
something different" back doors either, or else the US does not get to make
this argument against Huawei.

------
iliketosleep
Regardless of what Huawei has or hasn't done, it's written into Chinese law
that Chinese organizations are oblidged to assist in espionage operations when
needed. This means that companies like Huawei must be considered a national
security threat by China's rivals. I'm sure China would view US companies in a
similar way.

------
jammygit
One could imagine various countries contributing to large open hardware
projects and those governments preferring to use specific components that were
manufactured 'locally.' That way you theoretically know what a part does, how
it works, and you know it was at least not manufactured somewhere that worries
you.

I wonder if the cost of local manufacture would just be too high for the
economics to work (edit: it would certainly help create jobs anyway)

~~~
azernik
That's a cost-benefit equation that every country needs to make for itself,
but it's one that you see frequently in defense contracting - a country will
be perfectly happy to buy e.g. a tank design (and several hundred examples)
from a foreign country, as long as it includes the know-how to manufacture
them locally.

For example, in the rather interesting Israeli case, purchase of the F-35 was
conditioned on Israel being able to replace the avionics, which are probably
the part most vulnerable to unnoticeable tampering.

------
AnimalMuppet
I'm not sure "national security" and "without proof, is it a threat" go
together. In national security, you make your best estimate, with evidence,
but often with less than proof.

------
infact19
All closed-source networking equipment is a national threat. Public
infrastructure should use public, freely auditable technology.

I know that technically telecom networks are privately owned, but they've
become a vital utility to the public at this point, and should be treated as
such imo.

------
fredsmith27
There is proof of a nation forcing its companies to give access so that it can
spy on nationals not just at home but also abroad. The offending nation is the
USA. And for those who believe this was 'legitimate' and to fight terrorism
please note they were also caught spying on Angela Merkel to gain commercial
advantage during TTIP discussions. And now the insinuations and slander
orchestrated at government level to try to bring down a company that is
beating them in the marketplace is further proof that the US government will
do anything it can to give US companies an unfair advantage Suggesting we
should not deal with the Chinese because we 'cannot trust them' is downright
racist. I do not necessarily look for 'proof beyond reasonable doubt; but
today NOTHING has been offered apart from rumours.

The best way of avoiding conflict is to have deep rooted commercial
interactions such that there is too much to lose from falling out with your
neighbours. It has worked in Europe with the EU. Trump seems intent on
destroying the existing deeply interwoven supply chains involved in technology
today. No US chips in Chinese products and vica versa. Seems like preparations
for conflict.

------
ackbar03
I've heard someone make the opinion that the only main US is so worked up
about Huawei is the nsa can't get they're own backdoor in the equipment

~~~
threeseed
Let's be clear. The US isn't the only one getting worked up here.

It's the Five Eyes alliance countries as well as the EU and handfuls of other
countries. Even if the NSA had backdoors in all of the equipment I would be
much happier it be the US using the data than China.

At least in US you have courts and journalists which will hold the government
to account.

