There's no Huawei on Earth we're a national security threat, Chinese giant tells US appeals court Huawei is appealing against a decision by America’s comms watchdog to designate the Chinese giant a “national security threat." In June, the FCC issued an order that forbids US companies from using an $8.3bn subsidy – the regulator's Universal Service Fund – to buy Huawei-made gear. Products made by ZTE, a Chinese state-owned …
Huawei's situation has always seemed to be protectionism in the guise of national security driven by Trump and his minions. Extensive reviews of its kit in Europe turned up no threat (other than its buggy code which, if that counts, would make Windows an even bigger national security threat).
The US should be grateful that China didn't use the national security argument to ban, say, Boeing which has extensive ties to the US military and which, before the 737-MAX and the pandemic was shipping about a quarter of it's planes to China.
National security has become an excuse which is used too often.
China didn't use the national security argument to ban, say, Boeing
Not sure where you are in the globe but China has been using different "methods" of banning products originating from Australia (as punishment).
In press releases, China announced a ban of Australian cherries, however, some growers claim their Chinese importers are saying the opposite. China has made big headlines by announcing a ban of Australian coals, however, the coal miners were able to quickly divert the coal shipments to other countries at even higher prices.
China is not dumb. Presently, China's home-grown Comac C919 is still being tested and evaluated. The certificate of airworthiness will be released some time this year. Boeing and Airbus has, in my opinion, three years before China demands all local companies to buy Comac.
> Extensive reviews of its kit in Europe turned up no threat
Yet.
Who's going to scrutinize all future firmware updates from Huawei before deployment? I wish those making that argument would keep in mind that any manufacturer that can update its equipment in the field has effective root on those systems.
I for one am already uncomfortable with Google and Qualcomm having root on my smartphone; no way I'm going to entrust potential admin rights to a Chinese entity that can be simply told by its government to ship malicious code to hardware deployed the world over.
That goes not just for Huawei and ZTE, but for any Chinese brand IMO. At least with stuff built in China but designed in the West, the code signing keys should rest firmly in the headquarters of Apple/Nokia etc. (at least until they outsource their software too)...
Who's going to scrutinize all future firmware updates from Huawei before deployment? I wish those making that argument would keep in mind that any manufacturer that can update its equipment in the field has effective root on those systems.
SYS admins would have that job, hope fully they check EVERY update before they deploy it
I for one am already uncomfortable with Google and Qualcomm having root on my smartphone;
Why not? you trust the murkins and they are actively screwing you, both Govt and corp.
worse they do actively care about you the individual
no way I'm going to entrust potential admin rights to a Chinese entity that can be simply told by its government to ship malicious code to hardware deployed the world over.
The merkins have and do, personally the chinese are the lesser evil
That goes not just for Huawei and ZTE, but for any Chinese brand IMO. At least with stuff built in China but designed in the West, the code signing keys should rest firmly in the headquarters of Apple/Nokia etc. (at least until they outsource their software too)...
Would it not be better to open source the code? or local govt oversight (i know open to highest bidder)
or code that dose not require constant updating ...coff..coff
"Who's going to scrutinize all future firmware updates from Huawei before deployment?"
GCHQ was doing a prtety good job of that up until the day the UK government decided to ban Huawei on security grounds and repatedly stated that they found no issues (other than crufty code).
That's what made the UK ban obviously political - the country's OWN security organisations were giving it a clean bill of health
In the case of the USA: The FCC is well and truely stepping out of its regulatory confines (it's been stomping all over FTC toes for decades and preventing repeats of the 1930s FTC telco antitrust actions) by pretending to be competent in matters of security - that's NOT its remit and never has been
The words you're looking for are "regulatory capture" - in the same way McBoing managed to gain control of the FAA, USA telco vendors have managed to gain control of the FCC.
This shouldn't be surprising in a country where organised wide scale bribery of politicians is not only tolerated, but has become encouraged, expected and necessary to get ANYTHING done, becoming a formalised industry in itself - "lobbying"
Right - all Trump's fault.
But explain how most large companies have had policies in place long before Trump became president that require the use of disposable tech for visits to China. Upon their return the equipment may not be connected to the corporate network and has to be destroyed.
Maybe, just maybe it's because they have due cause to suspect foul play on the part of the People's Republic?
On a related note, why are T-shirts, flags, and the like with Ernesto's likeness so popular among many on the left in the USA?
Even as a non-supporter of Trump that makes me wonder...
"We know that the NSA put backdoors into Cisco routers, thanks to Snowden"
Excuse me, but we knew it years before Snowden. In fact, I suspect that the availability of such a feature in Cisco kit becauae of the USG requirement was a strong sales argument for Cisco in most international markets, including China.
Well yes, and the fact that every 5 Eyes member nation for instance demanded CISCO enable such access on the devices sold in their nations so that for instance the various British and German intelligence agencies could access them at will (coupled with how these nations treat encryption, you can see exactly where this is headed).
"Huawei's situation has always seemed to be protectionism in the guise of national security driven by Trump and his minion"
Ok so you don't like Trump. you have made that clear but Trump was not alone in the affair and I am sure that your current security advisors still have a lot to say, The military, the CIA, NSA are still the same group of people today.. A couple of heads might change but their fear of China remains, it's understandable.
Biden has presumed financial ties with China, and that is something that the American people really need to consider in the coming years... The American people really need to start to think about what Biden is going to do.... Just like Chess every move has a consequence and for the moment Biden doesn't seem to be a strategist.. Undoing what Trump did is not a strategy, it's just pandering to the masses.
Let's see how Biden negotiates with China about reducing carbon emissions, or about the Uigygurs, or human rights, or censorship.. Let's see if he is capable if being a true statesman....
The Huawei affair has it's importance... Biden can't blame Trump for his next moves, so he has to choose them very, very carefully...
China are not some third world backwards country, they are a powerful, thriving, power hungry communist regime.. and definitely not to be mis underestimated..
And Trump is in Putin's pocket, it has been plain to see for the last four years. What Trump did in four years was not a strategy, unless you think he planned to kill the best part of half a million of his own citizens?
How many times have Huawei been caught spying for the Chinese government? How does that compare to Cisco's record?
Afaik only one of these companies has been proven to spy for their government.
Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with that..
And the start of all the suspicions dates back much longer than that of the Trump presidency... Seems like Obama must have been well aware of this, so maybe Trump is not the cause ...
Were you pointing out this?
"In 2014, The New York Times reported, based upon documents leaked by Edward Snowden, that the U.S. National Security Agency has since 2007 been operating a covert program against Huawei. This involved breaking into Huawei's internal networks, including headquarter networks and founder Ren Zhengfei's communications."
Wouldn't this say that the NSA is the one using Huawei equipment to spy?
The main reason the suspicions arose is that US kit, notably Cisco, had backdoor features and Huawei was explicitly trying to take Cisco's market... so obviously they needed the same features.
This whole thing is a beat-up, and Biden will make a major blunder if he doesn't reverse the engines pretty soon. China will conclude that its current strategy (Make America Greatly Unnecessary) is the right one and double up its work to replace the entire hi-tech supply chain.
"A couple of heads might change but their fear of China remains, it's understandable."
The USA has a fear INDUSTRY - people are afraid of everything, including their own shadows and believe they need "protection" in various over the top ways
This is mostly driven by the people Eisenhower warned about in his farewall speech of January 17, 1961
“Last year the FCC issued a final designation identifying Huawei as a national security threat based on a substantial body of evidence developed by the FCC and numerous US national security agencies,”
Strangely, nobody seems to have actually seen any of the "substantial body of evidence", so at the moment it still looks like a purely commercial decision.
" so at the moment it still looks like a purely commercial decision."
Why is the FCC making commercial decisions?
Why is the FCC seeking to act as a regulator of commerce (Telcos) instead of leaving it to the FTC?
When did they start hiring antitrust supervisory lawyers?
Why is the FCC making blanket decisions about "bnational security"
When did they start taking on electronic security experts?
Messrs Dunning and Kruger would like a word (This also applies in the UK to OFCOM)
My opinions on Trump aside, I don't like the narrative that suggests that poor old Huawei are being victims of an economic warfare against poor old China, those selfless heroes who gives cheap tech in exchange for nothing...
Make no mistake, they are cunning, power hungry, tech-stealing (come on, you can't dispute this!) and ruthless. And it appears they are in it for the long haul, so their strategy is slow but extremely effective.
Personally, I'm quite happy to pay some more money for my data plans if it means that network kit is made in Europe (I trust the USA about as little as I trust China, but there are obvious fundamental differences in the two regimes that make the former far more tolerable).
Make no mistake, they are cunning, power hungry, tech-stealing (come on, you can't dispute this!) and ruthless. And it appears they are in it for the long haul, so their strategy is slow but extremely effective.
You are aware, are you not, that Huawei'd research budget is $20billion per annum. That's three times as great as Cisco's
"Huawei'd research budget is $20billion per annum. That's three times as great as Cisco's"
The number of USA/EU and Chinese patents they're being awarded is also a lot higher than Cisco (especially in the 5G arena), most of which they have put up on FRAND basis to all comers, unlike certain players whose FRAND only applies to organisations they like
My guess is that Huawei is so far down Rosenworcel's list of priorities that she won't get around to reconsidering the ban anytime soon. She's much more interested in net neutrality; privacy; improving Internet access, particularly for people in lower income brackets; and clamping down on exploitative behavior by the big ISPs. Based on what I've read of her public statements, this just doesn't seem like a policy issue she's particularly invested in, so I don't expect her to spend a lot of political capital on it one way or another. If Congress or the State Department makes a big push either to continue the ban or (less likely) to overturn it, Rosenworcel's FCC probably won't put up much of a fuss.
I could be completely wrong about that, of course; it's just the sense I get.
Huawei has a track record of following the market's demands (if sometimes belatedly). Consequently it has no visible ties with the Chinese government. The UK set up a special cyber centre dedicated to confirming this at a technical level. Spoof attacks on its integrity, such as the in-motherboard chip scandal the other year, have not been unknown but have lacked any grounding in reality.
On the other hand the Chinese government does have the legal authority to coerce Huawei as they please. A good few years back there were strong signs that the government were beginning to put trade and profit above politics. The Cultural Revolution was condemned outright. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed Huawei would not abuse a strong international presence. However more recently the government's treatment of Hong Kong has graphically demonstrated a return to the bad old days and a willingness to flout international agreements.
A few years ago I would have trusted Huawei not to abuse its dominant global presence for political purposes. Today, I do not trust the Chinese government as far as my Cat 3 cable will reach. Sorry, Huawei.
Hong Kong was long overdue -- if you had tried anything like the level of rioting that the protestors did there they would have been met with significant force in both leading democracies, the US and UK. You just can't go around formenting sedition in another country and claim you have a right to do this because its your 'human right', that's not how things work. Hong Kong is part of China -- live with it.
With regard to technology we in the West are busy cutting off our collective noses despite our face. We claim to be pushing back against China but we don't have any significant capabilty to push back with. The technology horse has long left the barn and before we can go around telling others what to do in this area we need to regrow our capability. Its no use pointing at 'software' and saying 'we can do that' -- of course we can, but then anyone else can, including the Chinese.
I don't like being associated with losers and currently both the US and the UK are looking like losers (the UK particuarly). Its not a reflection on individual capabilitiy but an observation of industrial policy over the last 50 years.
"On the other hand the Chinese government does have the legal authority to coerce Huawei as they please."
As does the USA with Cisco - and have been demonstrated to do so
There's also the issue that the USA government has repeatedly been fingered as directly involved in industrial espionage (frequently afgainst its "allies") and blatent protectionist behaviour whilst using the "Oh look! Squirrel!" tactic to divert criticism.
The recent stoush over australian coal and barley is a good example. The USA encouraged its poodle to keep annoying the chinese enough that they found a reason for blocking the products they might have otherwise let slide (unlawful subsidies), then walked in and scooped up the resulting sales gap, leaving its vassal state high and dry.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
