11–20 of 60 posts
Relevant discussion a day ago: Vodafone Found Hidden Backdoors in Huawei Equipment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786102
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With his almost glorious ability to insert foot in mouth, I would put money on self-incrimination.
It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.
It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
I'd love to know how he was caught. Not enough security on his phone - or old school interviews and sources?
Plus as its a criminal matter they would have been able to get warrants to get call records. As the journalist that broke the story is known, its not hard to figure out from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.
We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed."
So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible.
And if he's telling the truth, that person remains unnamed, and in a ministerial position.
In general, this is one of the news threads that I persistently don't understand. There is too much information missing. Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? Do they face threats from China? If so, how are these made? And then there is the other side of the coin, that the US allegations look credible overall, but it is also known that the NSA and GCHQ built spyi…
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-...
In general, this is one of the news threads that I persistently don't understand. There is too much information missing. Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? Do they face threats from China? If so, how are these made? And then there is the other side of the coin, that the US allegations look credible overall, but it is also known that the NSA and GCHQ built spyi…
The governmental advice / requirements not to use Huawei equipment is because China is not trusted, and diplomatic relations with China are bad. There appears to be no hard evidence that Huawei have abused their trust, yet at the same time, that doesn't mean they couldn't. It's not possible to differentiate innocent security vulnerabilities with underhandedly engineered ones. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether Huawei are abusing their position of trust or not, but whether they could be used as a weapon by their host country, to which the answer is that they could be, as for any such company anywhere. So ultimately it's a diplomatic issue.
In general, this is one of the news threads that I persistently don't understand. There is too much information missing. Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? Do they face threats from China? If so, how are these made? And then there is the other side of the coin, that the US allegations look credible overall, but it is also known that the NSA and GCHQ built spyi…
I'd love to know how he was caught. Not enough security on his phone - or old school interviews and sources?
They probably couldn't even tell him how they caught him, because then they'd have to admit that GCHQ is spying on most government members, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he'…