The U.S. spends 1/3 of the total world defense spending and more than the next seven largest spenders combined.
While we spend over half of our discretionary spending on defense, China spends it on their own people and development. We respond by whining that they are a national security threat simply because they're passing us by as the world's largest economy. One wonders if we will wise up before or after we go broke.
You're drastically understating China's military budget and their rapid advances in military power, much of which is being developed with stolen IP from the US. Also their militarization and annexation of the South China sea complete with constructing and heavily arming new islands.
And already pointed out by someone else, but worth repeating, their inhumane crackdown on their muslim minorities complete with 85 internment camps and recent actions don't exactly paint the picture of a Nice Guy China that you seem to keep pushing here for inexplicable reasons.
Yeh, according to the right wing hardliners logic they'll be invading Las Angeles next.... ROFL...
I still don't understand though why they focus so much on unverified rumors about China but ignore the facts that the U.S. has put kids in cages and its militarized police regularly shoot unarmed black kids to death.
Unverified rumors?
I get that you don't actually accept any journalistic sources that are linked, given that you have voices in your head with all the "right" answers, but the crackdown on Muslim Minorities is real, brutal, and well established by multiple sources.
You don't seem to grasp how propaganda campaigns work. They are seldom pure, 100% fabrication. Instead they contain just enough "facts" (often cherry picked or distorted) to make it sound credible to the fools and the cults. After the initial sales job it takes on a life of its own as the fools find additional "facts" to justify the original propaganda - and then get all huffy and insulted when the nonsense is challenged.
We saw that in action in the so called senate "trial" of Donald John Trump as his lawyers rolled out cherry picked, distorted and sometimes fabricated "facts" in order to give his cult an excuse to exonerate him. They heard what they wanted to hear and disregarded the rest in order to let him off the hook.
"You don't seem to grasp how propaganda campaigns work"
LOL, what a lazy ass, illiterate, dumb shit, you portray yourself every time you post.
Do a search on "Chinese Influence operations in the West"
I'll wait...
Guess what?
You have been propagandized by the Chinese, driven by your irrational Trump hatred.
LOL.... So more "facts" to support Trump's anti-China propaganda campaign?
Obviously you don't know how propaganda works.... You probably believe that Hillary was running a pedophile ring out of a DC pizza parlor. Or that Obama was in Africa. Or that Huawei poses a security threat to the free world. Or that a president can do anything he wants. Or that it was Ukraine who interfered in our 2016 election.
George, I think you might find this an interesting read independently of your final conclusions:
What is remarkable is how little Huawei and national security, as a real threat, are even mentioned.
Thanks, yes, that was interesting. Two takeaways for me:
1) I found that the whole article was based on the premise that China, and therefor Huawei are enemies of and threats to the United States. Yet that claim is based on the same foundation that led us to label Iraq as an enemy of and threat to the United States -- namely a total lack of evidence supplanted by pure fabrication. The only threat China has ever posed to the U.S. in the last 30 years is that they are predicted to assume the role as the world's largest economy -- but that is simply because they have been able build their industrial base while we have destroyed ours.
Which leads me to the main proposal of the article --- which I have always advocated:
2) The U.S. can best "protect itself" from competition from Huawei and China by rebuilding its abilities in electronics and communications using the same techniques and strategies that led to U.S. dominance throughout most of the 20th century (well the first 3/4's anyway): And that would be through a combination of government and private initiatives. In other words, we need to out compete China.
I would add however that simply rebuilding our electronics and communications superiority would do little to protect the U.S. from hostile nations because: Back in the 80's when Japan was doing to our steel and electronics industries what China has done to our industrial manufacturing the same points were raised: We would not be able to build necessary military hardware to protect ourselves without importing Japanese steel and electronics.
... In other words, the problem of depending on foreign nations for critical infrastucture and military components is not limited to electronics communications. It is pervasive and wide spread - and it certainly did not start with China.
So yes, we do need to make America great again. But we won't do that trying to block Huawei. The answer is (or should be) obvious to any who look with their eyes open: We simply have to do it better. We need to out compete them just as (as the article pointed out) we out competed the Soviet Union in the space race. John Kennedy would tell us that we can do it -- but only if we had the will to do what was necessary to win.
The trouble is: Not a single candidate running for November elections seems to have what it takes to inspire and direct the nation to rise to the necessary heights like Kennedy did. But then he would get laughed off the stage today when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you -- but what you can do for your country" because today, what everybody on both sides seem to be asking is: "What are ya gonna do for me?"
Peaceful nation China is not...
LOL... That's based on the same kind of phony right wing propaganda that told us Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
... Fabrication over Facts ....
But, if you repeat the lie often enough and loud enough and shout down any opposing information it becomes reality for the gullible.
... The right LOVES conspiracy theories. They live for conspiracy theories. They especially like the one about Ukraine attacking U.S. elections instead of Russia.
That might stem from the fact they are dominated by the same war mongers who got us to preemptively attack Iraq. They seem to assume that because they favor aggression, hate and war that everybody loves aggression, hate and war.
Most people seemed to have learned from the Iraq debacle that wars of any kind, even cold ones, need to be based on fact rather than fabrication. But the cult of the right starts with their conclusion that everybody shares their propensity for aggression, hate and war and then finds the facts to support their conclusion -- which creates a positive feedback loop that gets their panties all in a bunch.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
For me,
-- I was suspicious when the accusations against Huawei arose simultaneously with Trump's Trade War.
-- I became more suspicious when the U.S. started pressuring all other countries to spurn Huawei
-- I became even more suspicious when those countries asked Trump for evidence supporting his accusations and he had none.
-- And, the clincher was when he and his sycophants switched from "Huawei IS a security threat" to "Huawei MIGHT BE a security threat somewhere out in the FUTURE!" It became clear that it was just standard Republican trash talk to discredit an opponent.
Trump is a con man to whom truth and fact have no meaning. It is obvious that this is just one of his cons rather than anything based on reality.
It is also telling that his anti-Huawei rhetoric began to quiet down when he gave up on his trade war with China -- although the right wing crazies still seem to be a little crazed. They don't realize that Trump, Mnuchin, Ross & company got what they were after all along: Wall Street access to Chinese markets. Also, I suspect that his political hostage up in Canada will soon be released as well -- she started mounting a defense the same week as the so called "Trade Deal".
I don't doubt that they will keep up a low level of China & Huawei bashing -- the haters gotta hate something. But it seems to be dying off or at least dying down. And soon the right wing crazies will be moving on to the next target Trump and FauxNews point them at. Probably Biden and Schiff. Whatever it is, we know it won't be Russia or Saudi Arabia -- the only countries known to have attacked us and likely still are.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
For me,
-- I was suspicious when the accusations against Huawei arose simultaneously with Trump's Trade War.
-- I became more suspicious when the U.S. started pressuring all other countries to spurn Huawei
-- I became even more suspicious when those countries asked Trump for evidence supporting his accusations and he had none.
-- And, the clincher was when he and his sycophants switched from "Huawei IS a security threat" to "Huawei MIGHT BE a security threat somewhere out in the FUTURE!" It became clear that it was just standard Republican trash talk to discredit an opponent.
Trump is a con man to whom truth and fact have no meaning. It is obvious that this is just one of his cons rather than anything based on reality.
It is also telling that his anti-Huawei rhetoric began to quiet down when he gave up on his trade war with China -- although the right wing crazies still seem to be a little crazed. They don't realize that Trump, Mnuchin, Ross & company got what they were after all along: Wall Street access to Chinese markets. Also, I suspect that his political hostage up in Canada will soon be released as well -- she started mounting a defense the same week as the so called "Trade Deal".
I don't doubt that they will keep up a low level of China & Huawei bashing -- the haters gotta hate something. But it seems to be dying off or at least dying down. And soon the right wing crazies will be moving on to the next target Trump and FauxNews point them at. Probably Biden and Schiff. Whatever it is, we know it won't be Russia or Saudi Arabia -- the only countries known to have attacked us and likely still are.
The U.S. has been concerned about Huawei in U.S. Networks since the Obama administration, and likely before that, hence why so very little Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment is operational, and what is, is entirely in rural areas. The fact that banning Huawei, and the U.S. pushing that on its allies, mitigates an imbalance that is entirely due to the West's love of free markets, and China's industrial policy. This is allowing an opening for European and South Korean telecom companies to reinvest and grow to meet demand.
Neither you nor AvonB7 have an understanding of National Security if you think it is fine for an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure. Nor is it acceptable for China to be pushing its influence operations in the West, thought fortunately, that is a well being mitigated. This is exactly what Australia determined, and the reason that they went to the other Five Eyes to make their case. So far, only the UK has strayed out of all of the Five Eyes, and that is mitigated somewhat by the removal of Huawei from consideration in any core 5G buildout and a 35% cap overall, but the bill has yet to be delivered and the Tories promise to contest Boris Johnson's plans. Given that the German Parliament has concerns about Huawei, it is likely that they too will conclude that Huawei should be eliminated from 5G competition. The risk to the Germans is that China may decide to reduce automobile imports, which would be a blow the to Germans.
The UK is fucked because they have to have new trade deals with both the U.S. and China if they are to survive without a huge drop in GDP. China has made it clear to a number of smaller countries that they will take Huawei or suffer the consequences of loss of trade, and some of these countries have not acquiesced.
You are incorrect that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones that attack us. China has extracted a huge amount of IP from the U.S. and the West, both through hacking and influence operations in academic institutions, as well as the willing individuals in the U.S. Defense Industry. China has specifically been found to be responsible for most of the hacking that has happened to the Australians. Let's also not forget the massive Human Rights violations that are happening in China.
I'm actually hoping that the U.S. disengages China, but I doubt that will happen, albeit the chaos of Coronavirus has caused many corporations to reconsider operations in China. I would note that Xi Jinping is the primary reason that China has rolled back human rights for minorities, and increased the surveillance and police state to better control the Chinese People.
"Russia and China are waging a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation to undermine democracy in Europe, and the European Union must develop tools to fight back, a top EU official said Thursday.
European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova, who leads efforts to preserve democratic principles across the bloc, said the two countries have "weaponized information" and won't back down until Europe stands up to them.
"There are specific external actors, namely Russia and increasingly China, that are actively using disinformation and related interference tactics to undermine European democracy," Jourova told a conference of disinformation experts and policymakers in Brussels.
The two countries "will feel comfortable doing so until we demonstrate that we will not tolerate this aggression and interference," she said.
She said that "digital war" is a favoured method of Russia and China because "they see that it's efficient, it's cheap, and I am not naive enough to believe that some talk will discourage them from doing that."
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
For me,
-- I was suspicious when the accusations against Huawei arose simultaneously with Trump's Trade War.
-- I became more suspicious when the U.S. started pressuring all other countries to spurn Huawei
-- I became even more suspicious when those countries asked Trump for evidence supporting his accusations and he had none.
-- And, the clincher was when he and his sycophants switched from "Huawei IS a security threat" to "Huawei MIGHT BE a security threat somewhere out in the FUTURE!" It became clear that it was just standard Republican trash talk to discredit an opponent.
Trump is a con man to whom truth and fact have no meaning. It is obvious that this is just one of his cons rather than anything based on reality.
It is also telling that his anti-Huawei rhetoric began to quiet down when he gave up on his trade war with China -- although the right wing crazies still seem to be a little crazed. They don't realize that Trump, Mnuchin, Ross & company got what they were after all along: Wall Street access to Chinese markets. Also, I suspect that his political hostage up in Canada will soon be released as well -- she started mounting a defense the same week as the so called "Trade Deal".
I don't doubt that they will keep up a low level of China & Huawei bashing -- the haters gotta hate something. But it seems to be dying off or at least dying down. And soon the right wing crazies will be moving on to the next target Trump and FauxNews point them at. Probably Biden and Schiff. Whatever it is, we know it won't be Russia or Saudi Arabia -- the only countries known to have attacked us and likely still are.
The U.S. has been concerned about Huawei in U.S. Networks since the Obama administration, and likely before that, hence why so very little Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment is operational, and what is, is entirely in rural areas. The fact that banning Huawei, and the U.S. pushing that on its allies, mitigates an imbalance that is entirely due to the West's love of free markets, and China's industrial policy. This is allowing an opening for European and South Korean telecom companies to reinvest and grow to meet demand.
Neither you nor AvonB7 have an understanding of National Security if you think it is fine for an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure. Nor is it acceptable for China to be pushing its influence operations in the West, thought fortunately, that is a well being mitigated. This is exactly what Australia determined, and the reason that they went to the other Five Eyes to make their case. So far, only the UK has strayed out of all of the Five Eyes, and that is mitigated somewhat by the removal of Huawei from consideration in any core 5G buildout and a 35% cap overall, but the bill has yet to be delivered and the Tories promise to contest Boris Johnson's plans. Given that the German Parliament has concerns about Huawei, it is likely that they too will conclude that Huawei should be eliminated from 5G competition. The risk to the Germans is that China may decide to reduce automobile imports, which would be a blow the to Germans.
The UK is fucked because they have to have new trade deals with both the U.S. and China if they are to survive without a huge drop in GDP. China has made it clear to a number of smaller countries that they will take Huawei or suffer the consequences of loss of trade, and some of these countries have not acquiesced.
You are incorrect that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones that attack us. China has extracted a huge amount of IP from the U.S. and the West, both through hacking and influence operations in academic institutions, as well as the willing individuals in the U.S. Defense Industry. China has specifically been found to be responsible for most of the hacking that has happened to the Australians. Let's also not forget the massive Human Rights violations that are happening in China.
I'm actually hoping that the U.S. disengages China, but I doubt that will happen, albeit the chaos of Coronavirus has caused many corporations to reconsider operations in China. I would note that Xi Jinping is the primary reason that China has rolled back human rights for minorities, and increased the surveillance and police state to better control the Chinese People.
"Russia and China are waging a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation to undermine democracy in Europe, and the European Union must develop tools to fight back, a top EU official said Thursday.
European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova, who leads efforts to preserve democratic principles across the bloc, said the two countries have "weaponized information" and won't back down until Europe stands up to them.
"There are specific external actors, namely Russia and increasingly China, that are actively using disinformation and related interference tactics to undermine European democracy," Jourova told a conference of disinformation experts and policymakers in Brussels.
The two countries "will feel comfortable doing so until we demonstrate that we will not tolerate this aggression and interference," she said.
She said that "digital war" is a favoured method of Russia and China because "they see that it's efficient, it's cheap, and I am not naive enough to believe that some talk will discourage them from doing that."
Sorry, but the U.S. is always concerned about a LOT of things. Huawei didn't become a "threat" till Trump started his trade war. And now that he's backing down from his trade war the anti-Huawei rhetoric seems to be quieting down as well -- although the cult seems to still be beating the drums.
As for "an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure", neither Huawei nor any equipment manufacturer has control of infrastructure. They're just a vendor. They don't run it, we do. But we should be concerned about security no matter who that vendor is and no matter what country they are from.
As for trusting "an authoritarian nation": Being authoritarian has zero to do with trust. Because you don't approve of their form of government does not make them untrustworthy. Frankly I trust China's president FAR more than I do ours. Theirs has never done anything wrong. We know that ours has zero respect for law, ethics or democracy -- in fact he uses them he doesn't follow them -- and he's a cheat, a con man and a criminal.
And linking China with Russian disinformation campaigns is just stupid.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
For me,
-- I was suspicious when the accusations against Huawei arose simultaneously with Trump's Trade War.
-- I became more suspicious when the U.S. started pressuring all other countries to spurn Huawei
-- I became even more suspicious when those countries asked Trump for evidence supporting his accusations and he had none.
-- And, the clincher was when he and his sycophants switched from "Huawei IS a security threat" to "Huawei MIGHT BE a security threat somewhere out in the FUTURE!" It became clear that it was just standard Republican trash talk to discredit an opponent.
Trump is a con man to whom truth and fact have no meaning. It is obvious that this is just one of his cons rather than anything based on reality.
It is also telling that his anti-Huawei rhetoric began to quiet down when he gave up on his trade war with China -- although the right wing crazies still seem to be a little crazed. They don't realize that Trump, Mnuchin, Ross & company got what they were after all along: Wall Street access to Chinese markets. Also, I suspect that his political hostage up in Canada will soon be released as well -- she started mounting a defense the same week as the so called "Trade Deal".
I don't doubt that they will keep up a low level of China & Huawei bashing -- the haters gotta hate something. But it seems to be dying off or at least dying down. And soon the right wing crazies will be moving on to the next target Trump and FauxNews point them at. Probably Biden and Schiff. Whatever it is, we know it won't be Russia or Saudi Arabia -- the only countries known to have attacked us and likely still are.
The U.S. has been concerned about Huawei in U.S. Networks since the Obama administration, and likely before that, hence why so very little Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment is operational, and what is, is entirely in rural areas. The fact that banning Huawei, and the U.S. pushing that on its allies, mitigates an imbalance that is entirely due to the West's love of free markets, and China's industrial policy. This is allowing an opening for European and South Korean telecom companies to reinvest and grow to meet demand.
Neither you nor AvonB7 have an understanding of National Security if you think it is fine for an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure. Nor is it acceptable for China to be pushing its influence operations in the West, thought fortunately, that is a well being mitigated. This is exactly what Australia determined, and the reason that they went to the other Five Eyes to make their case. So far, only the UK has strayed out of all of the Five Eyes, and that is mitigated somewhat by the removal of Huawei from consideration in any core 5G buildout and a 35% cap overall, but the bill has yet to be delivered and the Tories promise to contest Boris Johnson's plans. Given that the German Parliament has concerns about Huawei, it is likely that they too will conclude that Huawei should be eliminated from 5G competition. The risk to the Germans is that China may decide to reduce automobile imports, which would be a blow the to Germans.
The UK is fucked because they have to have new trade deals with both the U.S. and China if they are to survive without a huge drop in GDP. China has made it clear to a number of smaller countries that they will take Huawei or suffer the consequences of loss of trade, and some of these countries have not acquiesced.
You are incorrect that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones that attack us. China has extracted a huge amount of IP from the U.S. and the West, both through hacking and influence operations in academic institutions, as well as the willing individuals in the U.S. Defense Industry. China has specifically been found to be responsible for most of the hacking that has happened to the Australians. Let's also not forget the massive Human Rights violations that are happening in China.
I'm actually hoping that the U.S. disengages China, but I doubt that will happen, albeit the chaos of Coronavirus has caused many corporations to reconsider operations in China. I would note that Xi Jinping is the primary reason that China has rolled back human rights for minorities, and increased the surveillance and police state to better control the Chinese People.
"Russia and China are waging a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation to undermine democracy in Europe, and the European Union must develop tools to fight back, a top EU official said Thursday.
European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova, who leads efforts to preserve democratic principles across the bloc, said the two countries have "weaponized information" and won't back down until Europe stands up to them.
"There are specific external actors, namely Russia and increasingly China, that are actively using disinformation and related interference tactics to undermine European democracy," Jourova told a conference of disinformation experts and policymakers in Brussels.
The two countries "will feel comfortable doing so until we demonstrate that we will not tolerate this aggression and interference," she said.
She said that "digital war" is a favoured method of Russia and China because "they see that it's efficient, it's cheap, and I am not naive enough to believe that some talk will discourage them from doing that."
Sorry, but the U.S. is always concerned about a LOT of things. Huawei didn't become a "threat" till Trump started his trade war. And now that he's backing down from his trade war the anti-Huawei rhetoric seems to be quieting down as well -- although the cult seems to still be beating the drums.
As for "an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure", neither Huawei nor any equipment manufacturer has control of infrastructure. They're just a vendor. They don't run it, we do. But we should be concerned about security no matter who that vendor is and no matter what country they are from.
As for trusting "an authoritarian nation": Being authoritarian has zero to do with trust. Because you don't approve of their form of government does not make them untrustworthy. Frankly I trust China's president FAR more than I do ours. Theirs has never done anything wrong. We know that ours has zero respect for law, ethics or democracy -- in fact he uses them he doesn't follow them -- and he's a cheat, a con man and a criminal.
And linking China with Russian disinformation campaigns is just stupid.
LOL!!!
Same as you ever were, unable to comprehend the world around you. It was the Australians that originally pulled the plug...
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
For me,
-- I was suspicious when the accusations against Huawei arose simultaneously with Trump's Trade War.
-- I became more suspicious when the U.S. started pressuring all other countries to spurn Huawei
-- I became even more suspicious when those countries asked Trump for evidence supporting his accusations and he had none.
-- And, the clincher was when he and his sycophants switched from "Huawei IS a security threat" to "Huawei MIGHT BE a security threat somewhere out in the FUTURE!" It became clear that it was just standard Republican trash talk to discredit an opponent.
Trump is a con man to whom truth and fact have no meaning. It is obvious that this is just one of his cons rather than anything based on reality.
It is also telling that his anti-Huawei rhetoric began to quiet down when he gave up on his trade war with China -- although the right wing crazies still seem to be a little crazed. They don't realize that Trump, Mnuchin, Ross & company got what they were after all along: Wall Street access to Chinese markets. Also, I suspect that his political hostage up in Canada will soon be released as well -- she started mounting a defense the same week as the so called "Trade Deal".
I don't doubt that they will keep up a low level of China & Huawei bashing -- the haters gotta hate something. But it seems to be dying off or at least dying down. And soon the right wing crazies will be moving on to the next target Trump and FauxNews point them at. Probably Biden and Schiff. Whatever it is, we know it won't be Russia or Saudi Arabia -- the only countries known to have attacked us and likely still are.
The U.S. has been concerned about Huawei in U.S. Networks since the Obama administration, and likely before that, hence why so very little Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment is operational, and what is, is entirely in rural areas. The fact that banning Huawei, and the U.S. pushing that on its allies, mitigates an imbalance that is entirely due to the West's love of free markets, and China's industrial policy. This is allowing an opening for European and South Korean telecom companies to reinvest and grow to meet demand.
Neither you nor AvonB7 have an understanding of National Security if you think it is fine for an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure. Nor is it acceptable for China to be pushing its influence operations in the West, thought fortunately, that is a well being mitigated. This is exactly what Australia determined, and the reason that they went to the other Five Eyes to make their case. So far, only the UK has strayed out of all of the Five Eyes, and that is mitigated somewhat by the removal of Huawei from consideration in any core 5G buildout and a 35% cap overall, but the bill has yet to be delivered and the Tories promise to contest Boris Johnson's plans. Given that the German Parliament has concerns about Huawei, it is likely that they too will conclude that Huawei should be eliminated from 5G competition. The risk to the Germans is that China may decide to reduce automobile imports, which would be a blow the to Germans.
The UK is fucked because they have to have new trade deals with both the U.S. and China if they are to survive without a huge drop in GDP. China has made it clear to a number of smaller countries that they will take Huawei or suffer the consequences of loss of trade, and some of these countries have not acquiesced.
You are incorrect that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones that attack us. China has extracted a huge amount of IP from the U.S. and the West, both through hacking and influence operations in academic institutions, as well as the willing individuals in the U.S. Defense Industry. China has specifically been found to be responsible for most of the hacking that has happened to the Australians. Let's also not forget the massive Human Rights violations that are happening in China.
I'm actually hoping that the U.S. disengages China, but I doubt that will happen, albeit the chaos of Coronavirus has caused many corporations to reconsider operations in China. I would note that Xi Jinping is the primary reason that China has rolled back human rights for minorities, and increased the surveillance and police state to better control the Chinese People.
"Russia and China are waging a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation to undermine democracy in Europe, and the European Union must develop tools to fight back, a top EU official said Thursday.
European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova, who leads efforts to preserve democratic principles across the bloc, said the two countries have "weaponized information" and won't back down until Europe stands up to them.
"There are specific external actors, namely Russia and increasingly China, that are actively using disinformation and related interference tactics to undermine European democracy," Jourova told a conference of disinformation experts and policymakers in Brussels.
The two countries "will feel comfortable doing so until we demonstrate that we will not tolerate this aggression and interference," she said.
She said that "digital war" is a favoured method of Russia and China because "they see that it's efficient, it's cheap, and I am not naive enough to believe that some talk will discourage them from doing that."
Sorry, but the U.S. is always concerned about a LOT of things. Huawei didn't become a "threat" till Trump started his trade war. And now that he's backing down from his trade war the anti-Huawei rhetoric seems to be quieting down as well -- although the cult seems to still be beating the drums.
As for "an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure", neither Huawei nor any equipment manufacturer has control of infrastructure. They're just a vendor. They don't run it, we do. But we should be concerned about security no matter who that vendor is and no matter what country they are from.
As for trusting "an authoritarian nation": Being authoritarian has zero to do with trust. Because you don't approve of their form of government does not make them untrustworthy. Frankly I trust China's president FAR more than I do ours. Theirs has never done anything wrong. We know that ours has zero respect for law, ethics or democracy -- in fact he uses them he doesn't follow them -- and he's a cheat, a con man and a criminal.
And linking China with Russian disinformation campaigns is just stupid.
LOL!!!
Same as you ever were, unable to comprehend the world around you. It was the Australians that originally pulled the plug...
I admit that I don't understand right wing propaganda or why anybody would believe it. But, those who do believe it seem to live in a different world. They blame Ukraine and China and ignore Russia. Go figure. Or maybe it's obvious: Most of Trump's henchmen, even those in congress, were implicated in his election rigging scheme. So, there's an obvious agenda at play.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Governments will try to compromise ICT systems for their own gain. They always have. Huawei is a vendor, not a government and there is very little they can do to help nefarious parties. Once the equipment is deployed, it is the carrier that runs the network, not Huawei. Huawei provides support and updates. The carriers run the network as they see fit in line with existing regulations.
Just one single proven case of what you are proposing would mean the absolute and instant death of the company.
It can't get any simpler than that. Why would they even risk it?
Security and National Security have been converted into soundbites lacking in any depth. Shallow catch-all excuses.
The people that actually know what they are talking about. The people who spend billions on Huawei equipment clearly don't see things the same way. Not in the slightest. The problem is that they depend on political decisions and the people banging drums hardest on Huawei literally have no idea what they are rambling on about. Actually it is far worse than not understanding the fundamentals of security. They don't even understand the fundamentals of stategic decision making.
Just last Friday we saw a classic public example of this:
Money, influence, power and technological gains are the issues.
The U.S is seriously lagging in one of the most important areas of world technological advancement. A field that will touch every single area of modern (and not so modern) life for years to come. They don't call it the next industrial revolution for nothing.
The U.S risks being overtaken and left in the dust. The stakes are high.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Most of what you write is just made up crap that's there to sound convincing to those without any knowledge in the field themselves; so I'm just going to focus on a few things to give food for thoughts to the unfortunate souls ending up reading the whole thread, and then I'm out of it.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Most of what you write is just made up crap that's there to sound convincing to those without any knowledge in the field themselves; so I'm just going to focus on a few things to give food for thoughts to the unfortunate souls ending up reading the whole thread, and then I'm out of it.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
You have now moved into full blown conspiracy theory mode. You sound like the U.S senators who regularly come out with unreasoned and outlandish claims.
The risks today are really no different to the risks 10 years ago. For ALL vendors. Can Huawei be trusted? Are you forgetting already years of ICT presence the world over with no issues whatsoever? Give me a reason NOT to trust them. Their record is spotless on ICT infrastructure.
I will repeat:
Huawei gets caught doing what you are imagining and Huawei dies an instant death. Literally. It can't get any simpler than that.
Give me one good reason, assuming as you insist, that it is possible, why Huawei would risk its very existence in that way?
And you speak of 'crap' and 'making' things up?
The only reason Huawei's current problems exist are - political.
Your proposal that they could alter hardware with something as tiny as a millimetre wide chip or similar brought back memories of the Bloomberg piece on the subject. Again, even those risks are applicable to all vendors.
Technologically speaking, the entire world accepts that risks exist. There is no debate about that. The point is that those risks are applicable to ALL vendors in this space and of all of those vendors, Huawei is the most scrutinised, and by far. Sticking espionage hardware on their own hardware is pure fantasy.
On a government level it is not even the Chinese who have the worst 'official' record. That probably goes to the U.S. given the evidence that has already been accumulated.
There is plenty of documentation from Huawei at the FCC. Just one:
Are you surprised that Trump himself has not helped his case?
" I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. We must always be the leader in everything we do, especially when it comes to the very exciting world of technology"
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Most of what you write is just made up crap that's there to sound convincing to those without any knowledge in the field themselves; so I'm just going to focus on a few things to give food for thoughts to the unfortunate souls ending up reading the whole thread, and then I'm out of it.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument:
If they can, they might. And if they might they will. Got it.
Aside from the fact that you can make that argument about every corporation on the planet; despite intense pressure from a multitude of countries being told they had to believe that argument, those proposing it have yet to come up with any evidence to support it.
So, the UK, for one, just told them where to shove their propaganda.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Most of what you write is just made up crap that's there to sound convincing to those without any knowledge in the field themselves; so I'm just going to focus on a few things to give food for thoughts to the unfortunate souls ending up reading the whole thread, and then I'm out of it.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
You have now moved into full blown conspiracy theory mode. You sound like the U.S senators who regularly come out with unreasoned and outlandish claims.
The risks today are really no different to the risks 10 years ago. For ALL vendors. Can Huawei be trusted? Are you forgetting already years of ICT presence the world over with no issues whatsoever? Give me a reason NOT to trust them. Their record is spotless on ICT infrastructure.
I will repeat:
Huawei gets caught doing what you are imagining and Huawei dies an instant death. Literally. It can't get any simpler than that.
Give me one good reason, assuming as you insist, that it is possible, why Huawei would risk its very existence in that way?
And you speak of 'crap' and 'making' things up?
The only reason Huawei's current problems exist are - political.
Your proposal that they could alter hardware with something as tiny as a millimetre wide chip or similar brought back memories of the Bloomberg piece on the subject. Again, even those risks are applicable to all vendors.
Technologically speaking, the entire world accepts that risks exist. There is no debate about that. The point is that those risks are applicable to ALL vendors in this space and of all of those vendors, Huawei is the most scrutinised, and by far. Sticking espionage hardware on their own hardware is pure fantasy.
On a government level it is not even the Chinese who have the worst 'official' record. That probably goes to the U.S. given the evidence that has already been accumulated.
There is plenty of documentation from Huawei at the FCC. Just one:
Are you surprised that Trump himself has not helped his case?
" I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. We must always be the leader in everything we do, especially when it comes to the very exciting world of technology"
Without a doubt, the network operators’ commercial interests are potentially at odds with UK security interests over Huawei. People often worry about the threat of “backdoors” in Huawei equipment and software that would allow remote control from outside the UK, but the issue is more systematic security failings in the software that could be remotely exploited.
The 2019 report of the board that oversees the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) said much of the software “lacks basic engineering competence” and “significantly increased risk to UK operators”.
The board could only give “limited assurance” about managing the risks, and said Huawei’s coding practices make the “job of any code auditor exceptionally hard”. In other words, the verifiers could miss insertions or oversights that might enable security breaches.
Another risk is that equipment suppliers usually have authorised remote access to their hardware to provide support or fulfil a managed services contract, and the equipment needs regular software security updates and bug fixes. Security updates could be vetted by HCSEC, but this would probably be a difficult undertaking to scale.
There is also a lot of outsourcing in this sector, including to Huawei, which opens up further potential for security breaches.
The UK National Cyber Security Centre, which advises the government, concedes the risks of admitting Huawei, but thinks they can be made “acceptable” by limiting access."
That is certainly at odds with what you posted.
Bottom line,
The Tories are going to attempt to torpedo the legislation that Boris is going to provide as a bill to Parliament, and the primary reason that the UK is fucked wrt to Huawei, is that Brexit requires the UK to come up with trade agreements with both China and the U.S., so Boris decided to cut the baby in thirds.
Huge cluster fuck.
Meanwhile, China has fucked up the mitigation of the Coronavirus epidemic due to the secrecy that they have forced on the doctors that have been dealing with this since at least early December. Are you sure that you want Xi Jinping to control your infrastructure?
Oh yeah, and Huawei is a State Owned Enterprise and must answer to the CCP, hence why any Western Government, even those that are accepting Huawei, have a concern about security.
In other news, the U.S military is transmitting over ICT equipment in Iraq in a de facto combat setting with no issues even though that equipment is dominated by Huawei.
You are completely ignoring that security isn't a simple on/off kind of a thing; rather it is a question about what information is kept secure, and when.
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
Which is exactly where the whole security stance falls apart. Communications today rely on interoperability for hardware, software, unified specifications etc. All areas where Huawei is present.
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
Huawei is one if the main creators of 5G along with many others.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Most of what you write is just made up crap that's there to sound convincing to those without any knowledge in the field themselves; so I'm just going to focus on a few things to give food for thoughts to the unfortunate souls ending up reading the whole thread, and then I'm out of it.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
You have now moved into full blown conspiracy theory mode. You sound like the U.S senators who regularly come out with unreasoned and outlandish claims.
The risks today are really no different to the risks 10 years ago. For ALL vendors. Can Huawei be trusted? Are you forgetting already years of ICT presence the world over with no issues whatsoever? Give me a reason NOT to trust them. Their record is spotless on ICT infrastructure.
I will repeat:
Huawei gets caught doing what you are imagining and Huawei dies an instant death. Literally. It can't get any simpler than that.
Give me one good reason, assuming as you insist, that it is possible, why Huawei would risk its very existence in that way?
And you speak of 'crap' and 'making' things up?
The only reason Huawei's current problems exist are - political.
Your proposal that they could alter hardware with something as tiny as a millimetre wide chip or similar brought back memories of the Bloomberg piece on the subject. Again, even those risks are applicable to all vendors.
Technologically speaking, the entire world accepts that risks exist. There is no debate about that. The point is that those risks are applicable to ALL vendors in this space and of all of those vendors, Huawei is the most scrutinised, and by far. Sticking espionage hardware on their own hardware is pure fantasy.
On a government level it is not even the Chinese who have the worst 'official' record. That probably goes to the U.S. given the evidence that has already been accumulated.
There is plenty of documentation from Huawei at the FCC. Just one:
Are you surprised that Trump himself has not helped his case?
" I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. We must always be the leader in everything we do, especially when it comes to the very exciting world of technology"
Without a doubt, the network operators’ commercial interests are potentially at odds with UK security interests over Huawei. People often worry about the threat of “backdoors” in Huawei equipment and software that would allow remote control from outside the UK, but the issue is more systematic security failings in the software that could be remotely exploited.
The 2019 report of the board that oversees the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) said much of the software “lacks basic engineering competence” and “significantly increased risk to UK operators”.
The board could only give “limited assurance” about managing the risks, and said Huawei’s coding practices make the “job of any code auditor exceptionally hard”. In other words, the verifiers could miss insertions or oversights that might enable security breaches.
Another risk is that equipment suppliers usually have authorised remote access to their hardware to provide support or fulfil a managed services contract, and the equipment needs regular software security updates and bug fixes. Security updates could be vetted by HCSEC, but this would probably be a difficult undertaking to scale.
There is also a lot of outsourcing in this sector, including to Huawei, which opens up further potential for security breaches.
The UK National Cyber Security Centre, which advises the government, concedes the risks of admitting Huawei, but thinks they can be made “acceptable” by limiting access."
That is certainly at odds with what you posted.
Bottom line,
The Tories are going to attempt to torpedo the legislation that Boris is going to provide as a bill to Parliament, and the primary reason that the UK is fucked wrt to Huawei, is that Brexit requires the UK to come up with trade agreements with both China and the U.S., so Boris decided to cut the baby in thirds.
Huge cluster fuck.
Meanwhile, China has fucked up the mitigation of the Coronavirus epidemic due to the secrecy that they have forced on the doctors that have been dealing with this since at least early December. Are you sure that you want Xi Jinping to control your infrastructure?
Oh yeah, and Huawei is a State Owned Enterprise and must answer to the CCP, hence why any Western Government, even those that are accepting Huawei, have a concern about security.
Curious. Not a peep about spying, backdoors and on the other hand there is an explicit reference to no evidence of Chinese state interference.
HCSEC
The 'H' in there is for Huawei.
Huawei, voluntarily, opens up it processes to government scrutiny. They have been managed by the UK government for 15 years and scrutinised since 2010. It has source code in a secure facility on U.K soil.
There is no other company on the planet (in this business) which finds itself scrutinised to such a level. None.
On top of that, the entire process is audited and fully transparent.
So, you may be wondering where the equivalent NCSEC and ECSEC are for Nokia and Ericsson. Well, they simply don't exist. Are you surprised? Of course not. You have no interest in that. Would you like Cisco to be subject to the same scrutiny. I guarantee you that you wouldn't.
The fact that Huawei not only opens its core products to scrutiny but engages the UK government in finding solutions to the issues raised, is something to celebrate from a security perspective. In spite of the flaws discovered, which are purely technical and in no way related to nefarious parties, the carriers are able to mitigate them in all cases where they are not explicitly exposed on the network.
The writer of the article you linked to needs to check his work. GSM is a very old technology. There is no real end to end encryption of land line calls. They are encrypted but the encryption is weak and easily defeated. Nothing to do with Huawei. Your WhatsApp, Signal calls etc are encrypted end to end.
As for the U.K not having the resources to keep up with changes in Huawei products, well perhaps he didn't read this from the oversight report:
"The NCSC Technical Competence Review found that the capability of HCSEC has improved in 2018, and the quality of staff has not diminished, meaning that technical work relevant to the overall mitigation strategy can be performed at scale and with high quality"
National Security? Not a peep.
And who are we comparing to, though? No one, right?
Are you surprised that the company that has been pushing for even greater oversight and security regulations - industry wide - is precisely Huawei?
The last two years at MWC and no doubt this year too.
That's 15 years of 'risk' but nothing to show for it in terms of Chinese government interference. That's official in the U.K.
What are the odds of discovering U.S interference somewhere along the line?
Open a different thread if you need to continue. I tried to bring this back on track earlier but to no avail. There is literally no point in having it in this thread.
Comments
The Chinese government controlling a large part of a country's civilian communications network is a huge security problem; but it's less of a problem for a military to use those networks, with signal corps and all kinds of security services guiding such usage.
The networks belong to those who run the network. Whichever way you look at it, your information is going to run (does run, is running) over Huawei gear at some point. It doesn't matter if it is by air or cable. The interoperability nature of things makes this inevitable. It has been like this for many a year and absolutely nothing has ever happened. Huawei has a spotless record here.
Supply chains are globalised, too. It is ironic that in spite of all the U.S claims of Huawei 'spying', when it comes to factual evidence of such practices, it is the U.S that takes the biscuit for trying to tamper with hardware. It is the U.S that got caught spying within the EU, it is the U.S that put Operation Shot Giant in motion. And we know a whole lot more thanks to Snowden and various wiki leaks. Do we have enough reasons already to see the U.S as a risk?
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: "Evidence, evidence, evidence".
Ironic, but there you have it.
More Irony? There is plenty.
It was the Pentagon and the DoD that pushed back against further plans to intensify to the U.S restrictions on Huawei. Supposedly because doing so would cause economic pain for U.S suppliers of Huawei and basically force Huawei to look elsewhere for components and in doing so create a double (or triple) whammy effect. Lost business ($Bs) for U.S tech suppliers which would in turn lead to less revenues to plough into R&D. Those revenues would then instead end up going to non-U.S companies and strengthening them.
You would have thought that any espionage risks would take precedence over such decisions. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously it is the economic impact and future competitive edge that are taking centre stage here, not national security (even if the wrapping paper had 'national security' written on it).
In theory, the same attack vectors should apply to Huawei with AI but the espionage label doesn't stick very well there. The situation is exactly the same though. Huawei has now even spun its AI business off into a new branch of the company. It has big plans. Those AI plans obviously leverage 5G. You can clearly see how the two could represent trillions in future business for whoever develops valid AI/5G solutions first.
The U.S doesn't want China/Huawei or EU/Huawei to start climbing that ladder before they do and will stop at nothing to slow down or stop rivals (allies included).
Apple's purchase of this solution is a tiny particle in the AI universe and will probably be limited to a CE role. This isn't Apple's first incursion and definitely won't be the last but the big developments will happen in other areas.
China does not 'control a large part of a country's civilian communications network'. The carrier does and if things ever got out of hand on a world scale, the simplest measure of all would be to physically shut down the layer running undersea. Something that any agressor would likely do first anyway.
Huawei has an absolutely stellar record when it comes to carrier security and says its carrier networks have never suffered a major security breach. U.S military operations in Iraq don't seem to be suffering. No claims to rip and replace there because this about, money, power and control - not security (or even security 'risks').
Huawei itself claims it handles a million attacks - a day - on its own systems.
Neither you nor AvonB7 have an understanding of National Security if you think it is fine for an authoritarian nation to control critical infrastructure. Nor is it acceptable for China to be pushing its influence operations in the West, thought fortunately, that is a well being mitigated. This is exactly what Australia determined, and the reason that they went to the other Five Eyes to make their case. So far, only the UK has strayed out of all of the Five Eyes, and that is mitigated somewhat by the removal of Huawei from consideration in any core 5G buildout and a 35% cap overall, but the bill has yet to be delivered and the Tories promise to contest Boris Johnson's plans. Given that the German Parliament has concerns about Huawei, it is likely that they too will conclude that Huawei should be eliminated from 5G competition. The risk to the Germans is that China may decide to reduce automobile imports, which would be a blow the to Germans.
The UK is fucked because they have to have new trade deals with both the U.S. and China if they are to survive without a huge drop in GDP. China has made it clear to a number of smaller countries that they will take Huawei or suffer the consequences of loss of trade, and some of these countries have not acquiesced.
You are incorrect that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the only ones that attack us. China has extracted a huge amount of IP from the U.S. and the West, both through hacking and influence operations in academic institutions, as well as the willing individuals in the U.S. Defense Industry. China has specifically been found to be responsible for most of the hacking that has happened to the Australians. Let's also not forget the massive Human Rights violations that are happening in China.
I'm actually hoping that the U.S. disengages China, but I doubt that will happen, albeit the chaos of Coronavirus has caused many corporations to reconsider operations in China. I would note that Xi Jinping is the primary reason that China has rolled back human rights for minorities, and increased the surveillance and police state to better control the Chinese People.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/russia-china-digital-war-undermine-democracies-1.5445709
This is the EU talking.
"Russia and China are waging a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation to undermine democracy in Europe, and the European Union must develop tools to fight back, a top EU official said Thursday.
European Commission Vice-President Vera Jourova, who leads efforts to preserve democratic principles across the bloc, said the two countries have "weaponized information" and won't back down until Europe stands up to them.
"There are specific external actors, namely Russia and increasingly China, that are actively using disinformation and related interference tactics to undermine European democracy," Jourova told a conference of disinformation experts and policymakers in Brussels.
The two countries "will feel comfortable doing so until we demonstrate that we will not tolerate this aggression and interference," she said.
She said that "digital war" is a favoured method of Russia and China because "they see that it's efficient, it's cheap, and I am not naive enough to believe that some talk will discourage them from doing that."
Same as you ever were, unable to comprehend the world around you. It was the Australians that originally pulled the plug...
You just don't understand how this works from a security perspective; so you end up sounding as a bot that with good grammar is putting words together in a "coherent" yet meaningless way. (Or you do understand it, and is knowingly spreading disinformation.)
No matter how you twist and turn your words the equipment involved is quite complex in the sense that it involves many parts where code can fairly easily (if you're a major nation with well funded cyberwarfare/terrorism units) be placed to either permanently or temporary do things not inline with just "interoperability"; and the fact is that Huawei, along with any other Chinese business, either is, or at any moment could become, a tool used by the Chinese communist party.
Right now the Chinese communist party is actively trying to influence, control, and supress, freedom of speech, press, and the arts, in a number of countries; and they have a well-known history of actively engaging in industrial espionage. Their embassy staff repeatedly over the years getting caught with trade secrets, and straight up organising "grassroots movements" supporting the Chinese communist party agendas.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Huawei is the most perfect posterchild of security and freedom, because as long as they are this much under the (potential/future) control of the Chinese communist party they end up being a potentially huge security risk; and that risk must be evaluated based on the actions of the Chinese communist party as they are behaving right now, not based on whether or not Huawei has so far been caught doing anything wrong in the past.
I admit that I don't understand right wing propaganda or why anybody would believe it. But, those who do believe it seem to live in a different world. They blame Ukraine and China and ignore Russia. Go figure. Or maybe it's obvious: Most of Trump's henchmen, even those in congress, were implicated in his election rigging scheme. So, there's an obvious agenda at play.
It has a high level of representation on standards committees which govern 5G.
It manufactures both the hardware and software needed for 5G deployment. From the back to the front end.
No other ICT company in the planet faces the same level of scrutiny as Huawei.
Security, as a common industry goal, is front and foremost for the industry and is a running theme at every MWC. Security however, is not a one stop shop. It requires industry participation, government participation, vendor participation, carrier participation and participation from the standards bodies.
Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position. This has been made clear by just about everybody with the technical credentials to speak on the subject.
That's why companies with vast technical know-how, standards bodies, carriers etc have been working with Huawei without issue for years. Working on 4G, 4.5G and 5G.
Do you truly believe that suddenly they see a new risk that they'd never identified before?
That is utterly absurd.
Governments will try to compromise ICT systems for their own gain. They always have. Huawei is a vendor, not a government and there is very little they can do to help nefarious parties. Once the equipment is deployed, it is the carrier that runs the network, not Huawei. Huawei provides support and updates. The carriers run the network as they see fit in line with existing regulations.
Just one single proven case of what you are proposing would mean the absolute and instant death of the company.
It can't get any simpler than that. Why would they even risk it?
Security and National Security have been converted into soundbites lacking in any depth. Shallow catch-all excuses.
The people that actually know what they are talking about. The people who spend billions on Huawei equipment clearly don't see things the same way. Not in the slightest. The problem is that they depend on political decisions and the people banging drums hardest on Huawei literally have no idea what they are rambling on about. Actually it is far worse than not understanding the fundamentals of security. They don't even understand the fundamentals of stategic decision making.
Just last Friday we saw a classic public example of this:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/trump-administrations-internal-fight-over-huawei-118916
Security isn't the issue.
Money, influence, power and technological gains are the issues.
The U.S is seriously lagging in one of the most important areas of world technological advancement. A field that will touch every single area of modern (and not so modern) life for years to come. They don't call it the next industrial revolution for nothing.
The U.S risks being overtaken and left in the dust. The stakes are high.
So let's begin by looking at Huawei's participation in developing these standards…
Whether or not they did is absolutely irrelevant as far as whether or not they can be trusted with running networks, where even the hardware itself could be compromised without anyone except a few experts knowing where and how to look would _maybe_ find it; we're talking millimetres, or less, in size, and where the altered behaviour might not even be detectable unless a few unique circumstances trigger it while it's being observed.
A practical example of how their in involvement in developing any standard could be a huge security risk can be found some years back when the Americans developed a new standard hash function, that would end up protecting a lot of business done online. A security agency stepped into the open process and suggested a few minor changes; that cryptographers couldn't see the benefit from. But a few years down the line a new attack was discovered, and these changes prevented that from working on this algorithm. So, yes, it is easily conceivable that there are lots of theys out there seeing risks no one else has identified before; and it is very conceivable that those same theys "help" guide developing processes.
So the greater influence Huawei had over the design of the standards, the greater the chance the CCP had the potential to guide that process towards a to them desirable outcome. But… practically that's almost only theoretical compared with the potential threat of Huawei hardware and ability to push updates into foreign networks.
It's not even fully about whether or not Huawei is used (by the CCP) from the top down; a few involved people at lower levels could easily do as much damage.
As far as you stating that "Huawei is no more of a risk than any other player in a similar position." I would say that the position that Huawei is in unique in as far as the level of control the Chinese government is able to exert (especially considering their ability to hide leaks/people they think are a risk); but even ignoring that the trust in the "player" in this situation must practically be evaluated by the trust in the forces able to (potentially) guide/take control of it… which… in… this… case… is… the… Chinese communist party. And they have the shittiest track record as far as privacy, respecting other countries, using military resources to do industrial espionage; and even straight out in the open threaten other countries for letting their own citizens have freedom of speech and press etc.
So, yeah, if Huawei should be trusted like any other business in any other country, then that trust should be evaluated based on how much you trust the Chinese communist party; just like how you should trust any other major player based on the potential influence of their government.
The risks today are really no different to the risks 10 years ago. For ALL vendors. Can Huawei be trusted? Are you forgetting already years of ICT presence the world over with no issues whatsoever? Give me a reason NOT to trust them. Their record is spotless on ICT infrastructure.
I will repeat:
Huawei gets caught doing what you are imagining and Huawei dies an instant death. Literally. It can't get any simpler than that.
Give me one good reason, assuming as you insist, that it is possible, why Huawei would risk its very existence in that way?
And you speak of 'crap' and 'making' things up?
The only reason Huawei's current problems exist are - political.
Your proposal that they could alter hardware with something as tiny as a millimetre wide chip or similar brought back memories of the Bloomberg piece on the subject. Again, even those risks are applicable to all vendors.
Technologically speaking, the entire world accepts that risks exist. There is no debate about that. The point is that those risks are applicable to ALL vendors in this space and of all of those vendors, Huawei is the most scrutinised, and by far. Sticking espionage hardware on their own hardware is pure fantasy.
On a government level it is not even the Chinese who have the worst 'official' record. That probably goes to the U.S. given the evidence that has already been accumulated.
There is plenty of documentation from Huawei at the FCC. Just one:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10312216478869/(20190312)%20Huawei%20FCC%20Ex%20Parte%20Written%20Submission.pdf
Are you surprised that Trump himself has not helped his case?
Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument:
THE SECURITY ISSUE
Without a doubt, the network operators’ commercial interests are potentially at odds with UK security interests over Huawei. People often worry about the threat of “backdoors” in Huawei equipment and software that would allow remote control from outside the UK, but the issue is more systematic security failings in the software that could be remotely exploited.
The 2019 report of the board that oversees the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) said much of the software “lacks basic engineering competence” and “significantly increased risk to UK operators”.
The board could only give “limited assurance” about managing the risks, and said Huawei’s coding practices make the “job of any code auditor exceptionally hard”. In other words, the verifiers could miss insertions or oversights that might enable security breaches.
Another risk is that equipment suppliers usually have authorised remote access to their hardware to provide support or fulfil a managed services contract, and the equipment needs regular software security updates and bug fixes. Security updates could be vetted by HCSEC, but this would probably be a difficult undertaking to scale.
There is also a lot of outsourcing in this sector, including to Huawei, which opens up further potential for security breaches.
The UK National Cyber Security Centre, which advises the government, concedes the risks of admitting Huawei, but thinks they can be made “acceptable” by limiting access."
That is certainly at odds with what you posted.
Bottom line,
The Tories are going to attempt to torpedo the legislation that Boris is going to provide as a bill to Parliament, and the primary reason that the UK is fucked wrt to Huawei, is that Brexit requires the UK to come up with trade agreements with both China and the U.S., so Boris decided to cut the baby in thirds.
Huge cluster fuck.
Meanwhile, China has fucked up the mitigation of the Coronavirus epidemic due to the secrecy that they have forced on the doctors that have been dealing with this since at least early December. Are you sure that you want Xi Jinping to control your infrastructure?
Oh yeah, and Huawei is a State Owned Enterprise and must answer to the CCP, hence why any Western Government, even those that are accepting Huawei, have a concern about security.
HCSEC
The 'H' in there is for Huawei.
Huawei, voluntarily, opens up it processes to government scrutiny. They have been managed by the UK government for 15 years and scrutinised since 2010. It has source code in a secure facility on U.K soil.
There is no other company on the planet (in this business) which finds itself scrutinised to such a level. None.
On top of that, the entire process is audited and fully transparent.
So, you may be wondering where the equivalent NCSEC and ECSEC are for Nokia and Ericsson. Well, they simply don't exist. Are you surprised? Of course not. You have no interest in that. Would you like Cisco to be subject to the same scrutiny. I guarantee you that you wouldn't.
The fact that Huawei not only opens its core products to scrutiny but engages the UK government in finding solutions to the issues raised, is something to celebrate from a security perspective. In spite of the flaws discovered, which are purely technical and in no way related to nefarious parties, the carriers are able to mitigate them in all cases where they are not explicitly exposed on the network.
The writer of the article you linked to needs to check his work. GSM is a very old technology. There is no real end to end encryption of land line calls. They are encrypted but the encryption is weak and easily defeated. Nothing to do with Huawei. Your WhatsApp, Signal calls etc are encrypted end to end.
As for the U.K not having the resources to keep up with changes in Huawei products, well perhaps he didn't read this from the oversight report:
"The NCSC Technical Competence Review found that the capability of HCSEC has improved in 2018, and the quality of staff has not diminished, meaning that technical work relevant to the overall mitigation strategy can be performed at scale and with high quality"
National Security? Not a peep.
And who are we comparing to, though? No one, right?
Are you surprised that the company that has been pushing for even greater oversight and security regulations - industry wide - is precisely Huawei?
The last two years at MWC and no doubt this year too.
That's 15 years of 'risk' but nothing to show for it in terms of Chinese government interference. That's official in the U.K.
What are the odds of discovering U.S interference somewhere along the line?
Open a different thread if you need to continue. I tried to bring this back on track earlier but to no avail. There is literally no point in having it in this thread.