Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you? That appears to be the only options now that technology has thoroughly penetrated every day life.
Another point not mentioned enough is that societies with free press are far more likely to find and report exploits/backdoors. In a country like the US you see this a lot. There's many cases of security researchers reporting possible government funded exploits against their own government. In a place like China reporting something like that would probably mean you disappear
A better decision rationale would be; which of the two is more likely to use their spy-data against you?
And the answer to that is without doubt; your own local spy agency, not the one operating in another country.
I can see the facts of the Chinese government's authoritarianism, their persecution of their minority populations, and their international behavior just fine. In fact, they're so economically influential, that I find criticism of them is muted, and tolerance of their crap is high.
There are thousands upon thousands of first and second generation Indians working in the US and UK tech industries. There are hardly any working in the Chinese tech industry.
The question is to whom you would prefer to give this strategic advantage.
Now it looks really bad at us that we are offended from an Asian player after selling our tech to them for many years (well they didn’t had other choices either)
Obviously some 5G components aren’t critical. In that case maybe we must be more open.
I agree with you that they are on the same level of neutral-good as Finland/Sweden when it comes to international relations in general, though.
Corrupt leadership can destroy that trust and hamstring an economy for decades, even centuries.
I'm not sure what kind of timelines you have in mind, but the above is clear if you look at the past few hundred of years of European history. Wars, in particular, have been funded by honoured business commitments.
Sure, but when in crises, people heavily favor the short term gains of reneging or violating an agreement over the loss of potential future opportunities.
Also using your logic, Chinese companies appear to be quite a bit trustworthy since businesses and individuals continue to do repeat business in China, continue to open up new businesses in China/sign new contracts etc, etc, etc. As you can imagine, the real-world is a lot more complex.
>I'm not sure what kind of timelines you have in mind, but the above is clear if you look at the past few hundred of years of European history. Wars, in particular, have been funded by honoured business commitments.
I'm talking about things like the confiscation of wealth/property, as happened under Edward I or Phillip IV, or the Stuart period (where the crown sold off lands to fund wars, and did not honor agreements for borrowed funds) for e.g.
Certainly nation states with their constitutions and laws have helped stem this unilateral 'dictatorial' approach to governance, but I think that its a bit too early to say that nation states will always be rational actors. Certainly the US, for e.g. has violated a lot of treaties that were signed with the native americans.
Which Nokia timeline are you talking about? The current Nokia HMD which outsources to China and was found to have Chinese botnet in them ?
Nokia had accidentally enabled an option intended for phones sold in China with a China Telecom contract. To verify that they were eligible for use with the contract, the phones would connect to China Telecom servers on first use. For the phones that had that option incorrectly enabled, the request failed (because they weren't in China Telecom's database) and was retried relatively frequently. Based on this behavior, the initial report assumed the worst, but in the end it was misconfigured telemetry.
You can call it spyware if you want, but no botnet was involved.
In this case, Nokia likely won't reintroduce an obfuscated version of the leak to evade detection, because it wasn't intentional. On the other hand, it's certainly possible they'll configure a phone for the wrong carrier again, since the configuration process apparently involves passing a bunch of carrier-specific feature flags at build time.
India should block Huawei now even more. Just like in the case with US, China has more to lose that India.
Edit: in case there was any confusion, when I said "US" above I was referring to US-China not US-India.
India is not that important for US, it is useful, Yes. Strategically important? Absolutely NOT!
Edit: To Provide Context, there is low scale tit-for-tat going between US and India regarding trade.
US exports to India climbed from $21b to $33b over the prior two years (2017 & 2018). That's a nice increase of $12b or 57%; their exports to the US increased by $8b over that same time frame.
To put that into context, US exports to India will match US exports to France this year approximately, so it's already a serious export market for the US (and 50%+ larger than US exports to Italy, which is the 8th largest economy). Importantly, India has serious economic growth and a likely high long-term growth trajectory, whereas most of the top 20 economies have had very little or zero growth the past decade plus. If you're the US and you're seeking export growth, India is one of the best options.
The primary benefit to maintaining a good, equitable economic relationship with India, is that they're likely to have a very large economy in the near future. Even though they will remain poor per capita for a long time, they're almost guaranteed to become the world's third largest economy behind the US and China in the next few decades.
In terms of economic output they passed France this year and will soon pass the UK (within 6-12 months if they haven't already). That puts them #5 behind Germany, which they'll plausibly pass in six or seven years. 20 years from now when they have a $8 or $10 trillion economy, as an American, I'd prefer that the US have a reasonable economic relationship with India that benefits both sides. In the future they will probably be a very important market for the US, so you should try to take care of the relationship today.
Could be or not, I interpreted the OP as he is commenting how US is losing a trade disagreement with India. Again, on second read it was ambiguous enough. It was not an intentional tangent.
India is extremely strategically important - there's a reason the US goverment now constantly talks about the "Indo-Pacific". It's likely the worlds most populous country, and has a rapidly growing economy.
But well, if India sees Huawei as security threat, shouldn't they have a quite good justification for blocking them? It's not that they are outright punishing Huawei for just existing, but that there is, in their opinion, a real cause for them to fear Huawei of spying their networks behalf of Chinese government?
Although the real reason would be a lot more nuanced as usual with politics. But to me it seems a bit unfair. Russia and China (and others, sure) have effectively blocked many foreign companies in different sectors in their respective countries because of security reasons, so why India isn't allowed to do the same thing?
Only problem is trade isn’t a game.
Or, to put it another way, you have no idea when your opponent will stop playing this game and start playing another one.
Everything involving decisions is a game. Trade is a game
I believe most people mean 5G NR (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR) when they talk about 5G, the same way 4G usually means LTE.
That movie was ahead of its time.
The only jobs that Ericsson brings to India are low end back office jobs and at the most billing software. Even though it could have been one of their largest growth markets.
This could be a good opportunity to get them/Huawei to setup more cutting edge R&D (especially PHY layer), co-development and manufacturing. India should hand out some Chinese medicine to the Chinese.
High tech is a chicken and egg problem, India has all the ingredients, but apparently free market doesn't work when monopolies are involved.
I wonder how that plays into it, given the recent events in Kashimir: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/india-revokes-kashmir...
If I had to guess these sanctions and warnings are never purely technological and are mostly political.
It tends to be that people think first of their own welfare and then maybe of their allegiance to the groups they belong to.
Also, interestingly, in the last two years their military aid has been reduced by almost half https://www.statista.com/chart/12384/us-aid-to-pakistan/. It seems the current administration is keen on reducing foreign aid across the board so maybe that's not too surprising. Though if I was China, I would notice that and make sure to "fill that void" so to speak.
Stop all sales including spare parts, revoke signing keys, block IPs of cell towers and cloud control panels from that country, stop tech support, and look how soon they will change their musik
What Indian firms even operate in China? What firms from any country other than China have a meaningful presence there?
I guess the threat is meaningful if you include firms doing any business in China, but by restricting exports or imposing tariffs they are shooting themselves in the foot as well.
In other news: https://www.dawn.com/news/1498428/china-says-india-move-on-k...
No government is beyond over stepping it's boundaries but unfortunately non US citizens do not have a constitution to protect them from the US government.
China is threatening the US global trade dominance and the US is reacting in exactly the same way incumbents usually do and unfortunately trade wars between major powers have been historical quite bloody.
No. I do not trust USA.
"Dear members of the jury, I know what you are thinking: well it looks like this guy did napalm little children in Vietnam, and did sell weapon to terrorists, and did support violent dictators. But I urge you to take a second look at my client; consider all the occasions where he DIDN'T murder women and children, that ought to count for something! And there are also instances where he DIDN'T support some dictators and terrorists. Also he gives to charity. I rest my case."
The wars China has been involved in don't include most of the places you claim. Korea, Vietnam, Tibet - that's about it since the post-WW2 revolution.
USA on the other hand has quite some list.
There is so much wrong with this statement. Let's take a look at some of your great examples.
> Iran (theocracy)
Do you know anything about American and British led operations to overthrow the Iranian government in the 1950s?
They overthrew a democratically elected government in order to install one more friendly to Western oil interests. Does that sound like a government that is the "protector of liberal democracies"?
> Cuba (dictatorship)
So the popular revolution against the military dictator Fulgencio Batista ended up with a pretty authoritarian government. We can argue on the legitimacy of the communist government, but let's talk about the government before that.
If the US was a "protector of liberal democracies" and likes to be "in conflict" with dictators, why didn't they care much about the government before the communist one? Oh yeah, because American companies owned 70% of the island and Batista was put into power by the US themselves.
> Venezuela (dictatorship)
Oh, Venezuela. This is a great topic. The US has been wanting to topple the democratically elected government since it's inception.
Here's a quote summarizing the sentiment of the people before 1999, when Hugo Chavez was elected.
> A sensation of insecurity became generalized throughout the population, constituting "an emerging culture of violence. . . very distinct from the culture of tolerance and peace that dominated Venezuelan society in the past." (Briceño León et al., 1997: 213). Along with unemployment, personal safety topped the problems perceived as most serious by the population. Between 1986 and 1996 the number of homicides per 10,000 inhabitants jumped from 13.4 to 56, an increase of 418 percent, with most of the victims being young males
It was a very bad time to be Venezuelan. Nowadays it is also a bad time to be Venezuelan. Why though? Do you think American sanctions and big business sabotage has nothing to do with it? To think so would be naive.
There are countless examples in every region of the entire planet where the US has done things that are not in line with the tag "protector of liberal democracy". They regularly cooperated with dictators, even brutal ones like Pinochet or Saddam Hussein. They do not care one lick about liberal democracy. It is realpolitik, plain and simple.
Now, I must state for posterity... The US is not the only country that behaves in this manner. I think any country will behave this way, because it's simply game theory. If someone's interests are in line with yours, you're going to cooperate with them.
I just think the US has so much power that it's influence is felt at a much higher presence than any other nation. So while any other country in the US's position would be performing similar actions, it's the US that's performing this actions.
Which is not to excuse any of this, but please get the timeline right. :)
It was only going into the 19th century that anything resembling control or oversight started to come into being. Which in no small part led to their disestablishment.
Edit: if I built a fleet of warships, flying the US flag, escorted by full US Navy warships began starting shooting wars with other countries, can the US government just go "not us, private citizens, we don't have anything to do with that"?
The company was far more a relic of the earlier age - when the sovereign gave favour, handed letters of marque and established privateers. The East India Company and the Dutch East India Company similarly were more corporate states than companies as we might recognise them.
The history is incredibly complex, worthy of many books, but for the period of roughly 1600-1800 the EIC was closer to the independent Nassau privateers turned pirate than to a regulated, and at least somewhat controlled, London plc. At some point early in their existence they remodelled themselves on the VOC (Dutch EIC) model to become more state-like as the VOC was so successful. The VOC was more independent nation state until the very late 18th century too.
They both fielded armies and navies independently and distinct from Britain or the Netherlands, made and enforced treaties in their own, not national, interests, had their own systems of justice etc. Being amongst the very first stock based institutions there were no systems of oversight and control. Stocks were still traded in coffee and tea shops, despite the recently established Royal Exchange - where stockbrokers weren't allowed. It was one of those coffee shops that would eventually became the London Stock Exchange. Any regulation came much later, and slowly, and ultimately led to the disestablishment of the EIC, and the wide range of corporate and stock law.
I might also blame government for not seeking to constrain the company earlier than they did... I can't really blame them for not regulating something that was new and unknown, just as in the current era bitcoin has seen regulation start to come long after its success. Or the talk of regulating Facebook, or no end of others...
Those two statements directly conflict: Saddam kept things under control a lot better than the violent mess that exists in Iraq now.
There is a reason why Kurdistan is one of the most peaceful and developed regions in the Middle East: they act the way you must act to be a prosperous modern people. The violent radicals who squandered the post-Saddam opportunity to build a modern Iraq are to blame for the killing and the chaos.
John Bolton, is that you?
The Pax Americana is a widely recognized phenomenon.
Taking down democracy in Iran. Supporting dictators in Latin America and Africa and assisting them in hunting down democracy activists. Financing terrorism in Angola for two decades. Fabricating an incident in order to attack North Vietnam, killing 3 millions people. Supporting "Asian Hitler" Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Tacitly supporting Pakistan's genocidal attack against Bangladesh. Selling weapons to the terrorist regime of Iran, and then using the money to support terrorists in central America. Fabricating a threat in order to invade Iraq (hundreds of thousands of dead, millions displaced). Supporting terrorist groups in Syria. Waging undeclared wars in (at least) seven countries at the moment.
The Chinese government is about as subtle as an atom bomb.
The fact that the US hasn't retaliated much in the tech industry probably just demonstrates that the industry wasn't firmly enough in bed with the government when China began blocking access to google and facebook.
A more modern example of this sort of behavior might be the original US sanctions on Venezuela in the 2000s.
The fact that Google has offices in China, offers services in China and runs conferences in China should show that they aren't blocked as a company. Dragonfly wasn't shut down by China, but by Google after they faced internal push back by employees against supporting Chinese censorship.
And how is this relevant to backdoors? Just wow.
Couldn't it also be something like 'Chinese-doing'? That seems more similar to what Wikipedia says about the name: