My guess is the proof the Germans were shown was a plan to tax their cars at 40%.
US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
71–80 of 296 posts
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
" saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless." They've provided ostensible 'proof' to the authorities in Germany and the UK who are the entities they are trying to convince of the issue, which is reasonable. We'll have to wait to see how the Europeans respond.
The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. In any case, my point is not that they aren't plausible reasons why they might not make any proof public. My point is that they aren't above using those plausible reasons to propagate disinformation. So their statements are meaningless to us (the public) because it's impossible to discern truth…
> The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure.
The British badly need to negotiate pst-Brexit trade deals with all major powers. Pissing off the CCP before the negotiations won’t help the UK’s plans.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.
c. They have sources saying as such but have not discovered the backdoor itself. d. Admitting how they found the backdoor would reveal other issues (a source in the pipeline, or their own backdoor in something Huawei made use of). And probably e-z too.
Hey, I like this game ....
e. they know Huawei have backdoor(s) because their mole put them in, so the USA could use them. They've not succeeded in getting a backdoor in 5G infrastructure, so they're ready to burn the old backdoor, to discredit Huawei (and win big on the markets) and to get countries to take USA based products on which there are backdoors in!
What we can be pretty sure of, as Trump's involved in pressuring countries to stop using Huawei, it's corrupt and there's a private financial win for Trump if he succeeds.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#74I'm usually impressed with HN comments, but this thread is currently dominated by insubstantiated conspiratorial mongering against American institutions.
The problem is of those institutions own making. Many Americans lost their lives hunting for Saddam’s WMDs - something that was fabricated by said institutions.
“Trust us” is no longer something we can blindly accept.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
" saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless." They've provided ostensible 'proof' to the authorities in Germany and the UK who are the entities they are trying to convince of the issue, which is reasonable. We'll have to wait to see how the Europeans respond.
The British response has been to still go ahead with using Huawei for potentially over 30% of their non-core infrastructure. In any case, my point is not that they aren't plausible reasons why they might not make any proof public. My point is that they aren't above using those plausible reasons to propagate disinformation. So their statements are meaningless to us (the public) because it's impossible to discern truth…
As far as I know Germany also did not exclude Huawei from 5G projects in general. Maybe they have a really good understanding where and where not working with Huawei poses a serious risk, maybe the provided evidence was not convincing, maybe they just don't care.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#76Is that proof "conflicted with NSA backdoor"
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#77A question to Europeans reading this- If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to Chinese officials, and Europeans had to use one or the other, which would you choose?
Definitely the Chinese, simply because their foreign policy is much less violent than that of the US, and they don't try to forcefully export their political and economic system to other countries.
Because the fact that China has not engaged in non-local applications of violence, they must be better than the US? That seems to be an amazingly narrow standard, because by that measure any country which carries out atrocities on its own population is 'better' than the US. I understand, even if I may not agree, some individual's dislike of American foreign policy, but to equate America's actions in the last 20 years at a global level with a nation-state which is (according to press reports) imprisoning and potentially torturing and killing those of its own population who meet certain ethnic and demographic criteria seems absent any amount of perspective.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.
"If they had proof they would have showed it already. " A) They did show 'proof' ostensibly, to the specific agencies of interest i.e. UK/Germany. B) Your 'a' and 'b' are missing the most important point, in that the revelation of their knowledge may compromise some ongoing intelligence program. The information may very well have been provided by spies who'd be put at risk. Literally yesterday WaPo published a story…
When was this? Just because in around Nov 2019 a GCHQ spokesman said Chinese backdoors went an issue with UK's dependency on Huawei for 5G (but other risks, network shutdown in times of conflict might be present).
Could you (or anyone) link a source where the NSA, or other USA agencies discuss this with technical detail?
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
just so we're clear, are we talking about lawful intercept (ie. capabilities built into the system so the telecom can comply with warrants), or dragnet or otherwise warantless surveillance? I'm not against "backdoors" for the former, but am against "backdoors" for the latter.
I mean, now you're just talking about intent, and thus have to trust that the intent is as claimed. Crypto doesn't discriminate on whether you have a warrant or not.
> Crypto doesn't discriminate on whether you have a warrant or not.
Actually, backdoors could be implemented to require a cryptographically signed warrant. Think e.g. lawful intercept on mobile network routers, US (or any other nation's) law could just add this as a requirement. You could even develop a complicated scheme to apply this to E2E crypto.
But of course skewing the RNG to be predictable, or implanting some hardware backdoor, is much easier and has the added bonus of being usable to spy not only on your own citizens, but also on other nations.
Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
" saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless." They've provided ostensible 'proof' to the authorities in Germany and the UK who are the entities they are trying to convince of the issue, which is reasonable. We'll have to wait to see how the Europeans respond.
UK has problem of ex-parliament being on board of UK division of Huawei. Doubt they'd shoot themselves in the foot and would probably do much in their power to prevent deals not going through.
Who in particular?