

US congress rules Huawei a 'security threat' - neya
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/world-business/us-congress-rules-huawei-a-security-threat-20121008-278h9.html

======
noonespecial
I'm thinking to be really secure, each installation will have to have multiple
rivals watching each other.

A Cisco to watch all of the packets produced by the Huawei and a Huawei to
watch all of the packets produced by the Cisco. Any packet they don't agree
on, gets dropped. Welcome the geopolitical AND gate.

------
nathan_long
>> "cannot be trusted" to be free of influence from Beijing

Unlike U.S. telecoms, which are totally free of influence from Washington.

~~~
larrik
Right or wrong, national security has nothing to do with fairness.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Agreed. And while I would not be particularly happy about the US spying on me,
Id rather have them than China do it.

~~~
king_jester
You are seriously mistaken if you believe that a violation of your privacy is
better from party A than party B. Both groups of people will fuck you over,
it's only a matter of time.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
Ah, but if only the world were really so black and white...

~~~
lostlogin
Has China kidnapped or assassinated people outside of China (or within) in
recent memory? Obviously the US has, but is China just better at hiding it?

------
dalore
Wasn't Huawei created by China because they thought Cisco equipment was a
security risk because it had backdoors for US govt agencies?

~~~
potatolicious
Welcome to the intelligence trade - where everyone, regardless of country,
would gladly trample their own grandmothers for a peek at someone else's
secrets.

As a Chinese, I don't find this story very farfetched. If a company is deep in
bed with the Chinese government, I wouldn't trust them any further than I can
throw them - the level of governmental influence over private industry is far
more substantial than what happens in the US.

~~~
lostlogin
What is your experience of business/government dealings? If you have spent
time working within Chinese companies or have an understanding through some
other means your thoughts would be very interesting to hear.

------
nsoldiac
In the past we (mostly I) have complained of the Gov't lack of undermining of
cyber security, and all things tech. Online attacks over the last decade have
been plentiful, so it seems they're being really cautious to an extreme, even
hurting consumer's options. But I can't blame them because: (A) In China large
corporations and gov't are always extra friendly. (B) Cyber espionage and
cyber attacks from China are not uncommon. (C) The US is not ready to protect
their 'cyber' infrastructure. Hopefully other HN's can see the following
problem too: Huawei placing billions of dollars of communications
infrastructure yet hoping they won't be able to monitor them, AND that
whatever can be monitored is in no way available to the Huawei Chinese
offices, which may or may not grant access the Chinese gov't to take a peek.
This is over speculation and unlikely, but if I'm in charge of a security
committee you have to assume this is possible and look into it.

------
factorialboy
Not surprising.

Indian Home Ministry also suspects the Chinese military being behind Huawei.

In fact a major controversy ongoing here is the allotment of telecom licenses
(which were later squashed by the courts) to companies dependent Huawei.

------
_seininn
What did Huawei do to become a security threat?

I fail to see how Huawei can be any more of a security threat than companies
such as Broadcom or Cisco.

If Huawei has indeed acted in bad faith, then make their actions public so
other nations/institutions avoid them. Otherwise, this will (and does) seem
like a political/financial play.

~~~
wickeand000
I think that the news article is a result of the Sixty Minutes Episode that
aired yesterday on Huawei. The points I got from their report were:

1\. Huawei (like many Chinese companies) works in close partnership with the
Chinese government, which has subsidized many of its processes.

2\. Huawei may be stealing IP from U.S. based companies

3\. The U.S. is totally reliant on foreign companies for swaths of our
communications infrastructure (which would be unsettling to a Congressional
committee)

4\. Then again, just because U.S. companies and the government were asleep at
the wheel when it came to these technologies, does that mean we get to be
choosy beggars? Is Huawei a threat to security or just a threat to the
economy?

~~~
rayiner
Someone at one router company told me that at one point, Huawei used to copy
their routers down to the English silk screening assembly instructions on the
PCB's.

------
ComputerGuru
I don't see anyone asking the obvious question: how much of this is just
posturing in an election year?

Huawei's been around in the States forever, and I'm certain they have
countless government contracts in place of varying sensitivity. Call me a
paranoid, but a month before the elections, I tend to question every newsbit I
see and hear as being politically motivated for personal gain.

------
j_col
The UK government have been independently testing Huawei gear for years in
this centre in the UK, will be interesting to see what they do now in light of
this ruling in the US: [http://www.zdnet.com/huawei-opens-cybersecurity-
testing-cent...](http://www.zdnet.com/huawei-opens-cybersecurity-testing-
centre-in-uk-3040091082/)

~~~
matthavener
Do they really think they can _test_ for subversive code? Just look at the
origin of "trojan". Its designed to look harmless from the outside but
contains something deadly on the inside.

~~~
lttlrck
That's why they've been doing it for years...

He didn't say it was easy.

------
macchina
The only thing that banning Huawei is sure to accomplish is choking
innovation.

It's reasonable to worry about security in telecommunications, but you'd be
hard-pressed to find any telecom that doesn't manufacture equipment in China
including Ericsson, Huawei's biggest competitor. Huawei has too much to lose
from spying, and I'd personally be more worried about these non-Chinese
companies which rely so heavily on Chinese subsidies and subcontracting.

One legitimate concern about Huawei though is transparency. Because it is
privately held and not listed on any stock market, it is not subject to
reporting requirements and it's ownership structure is allowed to remain
secretive. However, these aren't grounds for an outright ban.

~~~
stupandaus
"Huawei has too much to lose from spying..."

I think this assumption is pretty much incorrect. Corporate liabilities in
China are not like corporate liabilities in the western world.

~~~
macchina
OK, but "70 percent of Huawei’s $32 billion revenue comes from outside
China."[1] I think it's safe to assume that spying would be bad for business.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/global/15iht-
tele...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/global/15iht-
telecom15.html)

~~~
zaphar
It may be bad for business but that doesn't mean they will have a choice in
the matter. And unlike in the US they may not even have the option of being
transparent about how much they have to hand over. It's a very different world
legally over there.

------
yummyfajitas
First the windfarms, now telecom. I hope this isn't the beginning of a
tradewar.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/09/28/obama-
block...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/09/28/obama-blocks-
chinese-wind-farm-purchase/1600745/)

~~~
TechNewb
I don't know if I would call it a trade war. But the US has never had regular
trade with China. China reciprocates by blocking Facebook, YouTube, many
Google services, and many other services in the name of 'security'.

------
verelo
I saw this on 60 minutes last night. While there could be some truth to
elements of it, the whole story just goes against so many things that the US
should actually value, such as a free market. I think the best part of the
whole story was the example of a man who was visited by federal agents due to
his Huawei installation, and he saying something along the lines of "i had no
other option, Cisco doesnt make everything i need, there are no other US
companies that provide all the parts". He made a decision to buy the right
level of cost & quality he required, and because of it gets visited by the
government? Sounds a little insane to me, so much for the state staying out of
other peoples business...

~~~
csense
> things that the US should actually value, such as a free market

The problem is that countries like China disrupt the free market in ways that
are hard to combat -- currency games and subsidies for its own industries, for
example.

But the main problem is simple and obvious: As long as we have things like a
high minimum wage, environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc., we
will be at a disadvantage against countries that don't.

If you've ever played any complex-economy strategy games (Dwarf Fortress,
Settlers of Catan, Colonization, Imperialism, and Victoria come to mind), the
common theme I've found is that being self-sufficient makes you very powerful.

My conclusion: There's nothing wrong with protectionism, and our pro-
globalization economic policies since the 1970's have simply been wrongheaded.

------
pmorici
What is the difference between this and equipment designed by a US firm with
manufacturing outsourced to China. It would seem that the same alleged
opportunities for subversion would exist.

~~~
krenoten
It's a thorny issue. In the latter case, there is a US firm responsible for
the integrity of the hardware they sell here. When malware was discovered in
the firmware of PowerEdge servers Dell was shipping, Dell stood to lose a lot
of customer loyalty if they didn't handle the issue correctly. What is the
incentive structure like in a similar situation for Huawei?

~~~
dfox
Your example is fitting as Dell was selling (and I wouldn't be surprised if
still is) Dell-branded networking gear designed and made by Chinese ODM which
contained pretty obvious and well-known backdoor and it does not seem to
matter much.

------
driverdan
Unlike the security threat posed to everyone, including US citizens, by using
AT&T's (and most likely other large providers) US network which the government
illegally monitors? [1] Chinese communications companies may pose a security
threat to other countries (and companies) but perhaps we should be looking at
our own ridiculous problems first.

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T>

------
antonpug
I don't know if they are or not...but I do know that their phones are shit and
their support is virtually non-existent.

------
nikcub
link to 60 Minutes story that is the source of this story:

<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424702n>

(available everywhere)

------
16s
We seem to trust all of the chips and silicon we purchase from China. Why
single out and ban a telecom?

