
CIA Offers Proof Huawei Has Been Funded by China's Military and Intelligence - karambir
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/20/cia-offers-proof-huawei-has-been-funded-by-chinas-military-and-intelligence/#68bfd7647208
======
contingencies
A country with 1.4 billion people and a centralist governance stratagem that
allowed them to essentially leapfrog from telex to become the world's largest
internet population and the world center for mobile payment penetration
through government stimulation and investment. Now the CIA "reveals" that
branches of the government had a relationship with the single most advanced
telecom equipment manufacturer over the period. I would be more surprised if
they didn't. Anyway, thanks to brave individuals we've heard a lot about US
government methods ... this is a case of pot / kettle / black... "now give me
my budget!".

~~~
dahdum
Does it make a difference if the pot is calling the kettle black here? Even if
the US admitted it, that would strengthen the argument.

“We know it’s a national security threat, because we do it”.

~~~
ellius
There's a weird moral element to these discussions though. Lots of people
think this is "wrong," or that the CIA is accusing the Chinese intelligence
services of doing something wrong, whereas other people admit that all
countries play the game and simply are showing this as a legitimate threat.
That confusion between morality and cold threat analysis confounds a lot of
national security discussions.

~~~
CyanBird
> simply are showing this as a legitimate threat

The issue is with the perspective, China is certainty a "legitimate threat" to
the US, at least from a technological perspective, the problem is that China
IS NOT a threat to the rest of the world or at least not in the same degree it
is to the hegemonic power of the US, meanwhile the US indeed IS a
technological and military threat to countries around the globe, so wherever
the US and its agencies gaslight about China being a threat, it is always too
funny, when you remember that the US has all sorts of military bases, drones
subs and spy satellites deployed, not to mention it is already spying
digitally on the entire planet (this conversation included ofc)

~~~
dba7dba
China had not set up military bases around the world in the past because they
"did NOT have" the ability to do so. Now that the nation has the fund, they
are certainly starting to do so.

The Chinese army set up a major base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa just a
few years ago. It is the PLAN's first overseas military base and was built at
a cost of US$590 million. I'm sure it won't be the last.

If China can do what US can, they will do it. To think otherwise would just be
naive.

~~~
zaro
> If China can do what US can, they will do it. To think otherwise would just
> be naive.

Thats a bit of overstatement don't you think. Its very different culture after
all, and you are speculating based only from the American exceptionalasim
viewpoint which I think is very very outdated.

~~~
Teever
It's not a statement on culture but human nature.

Every country in the world would be an empire like the US if they only could.
Its a matter of opportunity not motivation.

The bigger issue is what would China do with all that power? We know what the
US does with it and I don't think a world lead by China would be as nice a
place as a world run by America.

It depends on what you want. Me, I want a world with democracy and due
process.

I don't see anything like that eminating from China and I doubt I ever will.

~~~
caprese
> Every country in the world would be an empire like the US if they only
> could.

Not every country has an expansionist policy

Surprise.

~~~
Teever
And I don't have a policy regarding dating super models. do you know why?
Because I don't have the opportunity to do that thing so I don't plan for it.

Rest assured if that was a thing I could do the. I would certainly have a
policy regarding it.

Its the same for countries and expansionism. Those that can, do. Those that
can't, dream.

~~~
mrobot
How do you know this?

~~~
Teever
Survival of the fittest

Those with sufficient survivial instinct will have a drive to dominate and
those that don't won't dominate.

~~~
CyanBird
All the things you are saying such as "human nature" or "survival instinct"
are just ideological and cultural precepts you simply can't back those
assessments up

------
ncmncm
Does anybody have a clue what this is really about?

Obviously it's not about the Chinese gov't putting backdoors in Huawei
equipment. They put backdoors in everybody's equipment, as does the NSA and,
where they can, GCHQ, the GRU, and Mossad. It's surprising any cellphone still
works with all the backdoors in the baseband processors, completely invisible
to (e.g.) your Android kernel running as a contained guest.

My best guess is that this is about competition with local makers of
equipment, which it is much easier to hide NSA backdoors in, and easier to
keep Chinese backdoors out of. Or maybe just competition with local makers, in
general. The US State Dept has been caught many times with their thumb on the
scales on behalf of US exporters, such as taking countries to court to stop
anti-smoking campaigns. France was similarly caught spying on behalf of
Airbus, vs Boeing sales.

~~~
NikkiA
It's about trying to slow china's growth towards 'beating' the US at global
trade. Part of it is FUD, part of it is justifying tariffs and bans.

------
codewiz
Couldn't Huawei debunk the allegations of having backdoors by just releasing
all source code of its 5G equipment, along with a verifiable build? It
wouldn't even have to be licensed as open source, just available for security
reviews.

The CIA could still claim that Huawei is hiding backdoors in microcode, or
even in the ethernet connectors, but it would greatly weaken their
credibility.

~~~
ianai
That only works if they’re not putting back doors into their hardware.

~~~
secfirstmd
It's work reading the UK GCHQ NCSC reports on Huawei. They consistently
complain about the difficulties of verifiable builds for its software and also
use of third party or outdated protocols.

------
Cypher
Sounds like another WMD show, I'll get the popcorn.

~~~
stubish
Indeed. There is a history of only the answers the politicians want to hear
being presented, and doubts and counter arguments being swept under the
carpet. It's propaganda unless a reputable source can corroborate it.

------
echaozh
Receiving funding is different from being funded by, right? It may have been
payment for the service provided by Huawei to the China's military and
intelligence, right? Or can Huawei not provide service to them even if it's a
Chinese company?

------
atemerev
I am not a fan of Chinese goals and methods, but this doesn't mean anything.
The entire Internet has been funded by US military and intelligence, so what?

------
coralreef
Heh, the CIA funded Facebook via In-Q-Tel

------
sudoaza
SOrry didn't the CIA funded Google and Facebook? Who do segmenting of people,
face recognition and more?

[https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-
goo...](https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-
google-e836451a959e)

------
ycombonator
Of course it is funded by the communist regime. Why else they would fight
tooth and nail against the bans all over the world.

------
jplayer01
I'm a bit alarmed at how disinterested people are being here. Here is China, a
global power, doing all it can to undermine Western countries and amass
influence/power, and nobody here cares. While they steal the IP of the
companies that allow us our quality/way of life, you guys are all "Ah, well,
we do it too". Well, fuck, I hope so, because the US is the only superpower
with anything resembling Western values that I'd like to see remain the
dominant value system. And the West is the only cultural sphere that has any
interest in things like due process, democracy, free press, freedom of speech,
etc., while China and Russia are more than happy to jail anybody who's
critical of them or their policies if they can.

\- A concerned German

~~~
chillacy
I think it is an issue worth discussing but the way it’s usually framed is
from some sort of morally superior position instead of a tactical position.
You’ve framed it like a game of chess, which is closer to how geopolitics
works in reality, so I can get behind that.

~~~
jplayer01
I used to be more of a pacifist and idealist. The whole "the industrial-
military complex is evil" shtick or "US global hegemony is terrible" thing.
I've watched all of Chomsky's talks, read his books. I'm painfully aware of
all the legit evil things the US has done in the name of protecting its sphere
of influence and I've always been deeply suspicious and critical of the US
(that whole Iraq war, black sites, etc. tend to be things that don't sit well
with people who think values are important).

And I probably would've remained that way if I didn't watch on the news how
Russia literally annexed a part of Ukraine without a "war" while NATO twiddled
its thumbs and went "Well, they didn't invade, so dunno". Or how the US
squanders its influence and power while China branches out into Africa, Asia,
Europe and the US by buying out everybody and everything they can - meanwhile
ensuring they maintain an iron fist over their own press or any critics, and
their entire economy and culture and population. In the middle of all this,
Europe is in a decade-long crisis over, well, everything and Germany couldn't
influence its way out of a paper bag, despite its impressive economy.

For all its flaws (and there are a depressing fuckload), I prefer the US's
world order over China's, where they can imprison a million Muslims with no
repercussion. I just wish the US were _better_ , in every way, because I know
there are tons of people who'll point at the US-Mexico border and what Trump
has done and say "See, they're just as bad". And they have a point that the US
does terrible things, while still missing the point, and it's both infuriating
and depressing because if the US actually held itself to its own standards, I
wouldn't have to qualify my every statement where I defend the US over
China/Russia.

~~~
chillacy
I totally agree that I would prefer a US world order. I think a lot of people
around the world agree. But geopolitics usually just comes down to self
interest at the end of the day. And if you look at every action from an
inhumanely rational point of view, geopolitics makes more sense.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik)

