
Huawei Trolls U.S. on Spy Claims with a Jab at Snowden - luckylittle
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-26/u-s-huawei-wage-war-of-words-at-telecom-industry-s-top-show
======
dijit
I feel like this is fair. People like to paint enemies of the east while
essentially letting the west get away with much more heinous stuff.

The difference of course is that we implicitly trust US tech companies, of
course we do, nobody else has such a monopoly on CPUs and Operating System
production. Not to mention web browsers and all kinds of technology. Avoiding
the USA in your tech stack is quite literally impossible.

And we permit the US government (by extension the NSA and 5eyes) to do what
ever they want to us without fear of repercussion because what course of
action could we take? As long as we are not a US citizen we have literally
zero protections.

it’s to the point that my EU based company is applying US sanctions (to Crimea
for instance, where no EU sanction covers telecommunications) because we would
fall out of line in many of our contracts from US tech companies.

It is clearly a double standard. But the answer is to hold the US to account.
Not bring more of this hostile crap in.

~~~
hatsunearu
I don't like the false equivalence of what the US-lead western intelligence
does and what the Chinese state does.

Obviously in a perfect world none of the "bad" things happen, but I'd rather
take the US government spying on me than the Chinese government spy on me.

~~~
miaklesp
> I'd rather take the US government spying on me than the Chinese government
> spy on me.

Not everyone shares your opinion.

~~~
OG_BME
If the Uighurs had a voice, I think they might have something to say about
that[1].

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/chin...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/china-has-turned-xinjiang-into-a-zone-of-repression--and-a-
frightening-window-into-the-
future/2019/02/23/780092fe-353f-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html)

~~~
YUMad
Cool story bro.

Me, just like Uyghurs, would prefer to be spied on by the evil empire which
DOESN'T rule me.

Uyghurs are ruled by China so they'd rather be spied on by us for sure.

I live in Europe so I'm ruled by US, and therefore would prefer China to spy
on me.

------
blackoil
We should start with the assumption that every government, carrier, service
provider, device manufacturer is rogue and will start spying on us. As a
technologist, it is responsibility of the people here to create sustainable
systems and services which are simple to adopt so can be used by billions of
people while keeping there privacy intact. I'll be happy to fund (in my meager
capacity) any effort by Mozilla/EFF to take back control.

~~~
rchaud
Thank you. The rest of these comments are involved in a circular argument
about East v West, as thought these are fresh debates no one's ever had
before.

China v US dick-waving doesn't change the 'facts on the ground' for average
people, which is that state surveillance exists, and many people don't know
just how expansive it is. That's what people should be opposing, instead of
cheering on two massive bureaucracies like they're sports teams.

------
cm2187
This is really not a smart defense. US accuses Chinese company of introducing
backdoors in its products for the benefit of China. Chinese company says
everyone does it, proves it based on Snowden revelations.

The Chinese company is most likely right. But if you are a national carrier,
do you then buy the product with the Chinese backdoors?

The only defense that wouldn’t kill their sales would be arguing for the
opposite, that backdoors undermine the trust of their customers, and that they
have the same incentive as Google, Apple or Cisco to push back on those
requests.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
It may not be smart but at least it's refreshingly honest.

~~~
calyth2018
Basically, choose the built-in backdoor. Nevermind the fact that nation-states
with the capability will amass 0-days against them anyways.

------
holdenc
Referencing Prism is a jab at the US, but hardly a jab a Snowden. Misleading
headline!

~~~
steamer25
I agree it's not worded well. I think they might have intended to mean a jab
at U.S. surveillance dragnets via the Snowden _affair_.

------
CathayRe
Nice, Huawei Finally pointed this out, so the next step is hopefully somebody
pointing out the difference.

There will never be a Snowden in China. You can guarantee their life, or their
love one's life will be held hostage.

So not only does the "West" ( So to speak ) has a system in place protecting
these people, they also have a system to vote them out and elect a new form of
government should the ultimate worst come to play.

What can you do with the CCP?

~~~
chrischen
Can you cite evidence of Chinese dissidents having family members held
hostage? Genuinely curious if this is true, because it doesn't sound like it's
true as even the Chinese government is accountable to public opinion to a
large degree.

For an accusation like that you should always provide substantiated evidence,
otherwise you're just flaming the anti-Chinese racial flames. Because as
terrible as you may think the Chinese government is, it still has the
legitimacy and support of a vast majority of the Chinese population.

~~~
King-Aaron
> Can you cite evidence of Chinese dissidents having family members held
> hostage?

Not the best coming from the Guardian admittedly, but still. Top result in
google.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/26/chinese-
activi...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/26/chinese-activists-
family-taken-away-over-letter-calling-for-xi-jinping-to-quit)

~~~
calcifer
> Not the best coming from the Guardian admittedly

What is that supposed to mean?

~~~
dijit
Guardian is a newspaper generally perceived to be anti-authoritarian.

It's one of the few "left" newspapers in the UK.

~~~
calcifer
I know that. I'm questioning GP's apologetic tone that implies it's wrong to
link to the Guardian.

~~~
uodtl
If you know that then you know the answer. It's an anti-authoritarian paper so
it's going to be biased against an authoritarian government.

------
morpheuskafka
Ping makes a pretty clever reference directly to this NSA program:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_\(surveillance_program\)).
I've got to admit, it's quite apropos, although I don't think it dismisses the
US's legitimate concerns over PRC tech influence.

------
chrischen
Frankly if Huawei tech is at risk of being compromised, so can any tech, even
US-based ones. Shouldn't be putting that much trust in the manufacturer
regardless of where they are from.

The fight then ends up being a squabble over power and who should have it. The
US government is only saying what it says because it simply wants more power
in its hands—nothing more. Same goes for the China side, although they're just
trying to sell something. There's no way China can win this argument since
it's just about power (unless they bend over).

------
OG_BME
Some of these comments are... weird. Multiple accounts with broken English
defending China and bringing up African Americans (somewhat irrelevantly) in
every argument. I'll leave the speculation as an exercise for the reader.

~~~
dijit
This is spreading FUD and I'm not sure for what reason.

I have no problem telling you who I am; I currently seem to have the top
comment here[0] which makes me probably the prime target of this message.

What about my English is broken? I am British[1], I have been around for a
long time[2] and I currently live in Sweden. I have no obligation to any US or
China based tech company and no affiliation with China at all (other than the
fact I work for a games company that is 5% owned by Tencent[3], but I am
definitely not directly involved and I consider their efforts an intrusion).

If you think I'm a troll then I've been playing the long game, I have GitHub
commits under this name since 2011.

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19261105](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19261105)

[1]: [http://linkedin.com/in/jharasym/](http://linkedin.com/in/jharasym/)

[2]: [https://github.com/dijit](https://github.com/dijit)

[3]: [https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/20/17144094/ubisoft-
vivendi-s...](https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/20/17144094/ubisoft-vivendi-
sells-stake-tencent-deal)

------
throw2016
The crime is the action, not who is doing it. Why should US firms be allowed
to not only get away but seek to normalize and profit from global surveillance
while Huawei is penalized for FUD? What sort of global system is this?

This just won't fly for anyone concerned with the ethical issues. The point is
not that Huawei should get away with anything but no one should. This not only
makes a mockery of concern with surveillance but also exposes globalization
and free markets as self serving political tools.

Huawei is a perfect example of how ethical issues are hijacked by vested
interests with zero interest in the ethics to encourage an empty culture of
jingoistic finger pointing that serve to distract and deny while advancing
their own financial interests at the cost of everyone else.

------
jorblumesea
What about the million Uighurs in Chinese concentration camps?

The scale of state crimes are vastly different here.

~~~
pjc50
How many separated Latino children are in indefinite detention these days?

~~~
jorblumesea
That makes it okay then? Because the US does shady stuff, that means China is
okay to do what they want?

Putting millions of your own citizens in a concentration camp is a crime on
the scale of nothing currently seen in the modern world.

Excusing China's human rights violations because the US actions are
whataboutism and is a completely bullshit argument.

~~~
pjc50
No, it makes neither side OK. And failing to do anything about it in the side
under democratic control makes it harder to do elsewhere.

