Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#51

Post by C1sc0cat »

atoav wrote: post #22
geowwy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not back doors in my opinion. It's more that the US is expecting 5G to be big (really big) and they don't want to world relying on China for their infrastructure. It's bad for (America's) national security and it gives China too much clout.

Sadly the five eyes couldn’t proof a single backdoor in Huawei products while the history of backdoors in US hardware is quite well documented. If the five eyes hadn’t shown time and time again, that they don’t give a damn about the laws and rights of other democratic nations, and quite definitly use “security” as a token for industrial spionage, I might show more support. But please show more than some fiction in wh…

If they had proof would they disclose it.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#52

Post by khuey »

thisgoodlife wrote: post #25
geezerjay wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. Is there any difference, really, specially if said company is a corporate arm of China's military?

wait, what? Isn't Huawei a private company?

Nobody knows. The ownership structure of Huawei is extremely obfuscated and it has a dual share class system where the employee shares have no voting rights.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#53

Post by atoav »

ovi256 wrote: post #36
atoav wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual evidence of backdoors would be a start. There is a long list of state security enforced backdoors in american products. The list for Huawei is short. The US typically assumes the tactics itself uses must be used by anybody else. If you want us to choose between the Chinese and the Five Eyes spying on us, providing actual evidence for Chinese spying would be worth a lot for the side that has at least traces of…

>Actual evidence of backdoors There doesn't have to be a backdoor today. In the future, whenever they desire, the Chinese gov can ask Huawei for access and they will comply. That's the threat model.

Yeah, but if you have the choice between a product with an existing history of backdoors and one which potentially, at some point in the future based on political prediction could have one, how do you choose?

Let’s assume you are not in the US and industrial spionage will be bad for you independend if it happens from China or from the US.

The answer isn’t that clearcut.

Also: banning a product based on the possibility that it could get a backdoor in the future? That would mean banning all products with an update functionality.

Edit: as you might notice this is not compelling evidence

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#55

Post by atoav »

dirtyid wrote: post #49
ovi256 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>have already hacked into Huawei internal emails and found nothing That means nothing, even if today the Chinese intelligence services take absolutely no interest in penetrating Huawei - which is laughable - that can change. If five years from now Huawei 5G equipment is used to build your countries 5G network, the Chinese gov uses their equivalent of a NSL and it's game over. Even if today's Huawei is clean. That's t…

Yes the obvious concern is potential risk. But the PR spin is angry Americans (and allies) screaming China bad with no (public) evidence of back doors and a preponderance of public reports from governments and private security researchers that Huawei is clean . That's the kind of irrational sentiment Huawei wants to cultivate - innocent until proven guilty. Any rational person can see it's absurd to have China build…

I arrived at the same conclusion.

The US is in panic, because not only is there a sense of crisis because the rest of the world is less and less willing to put up with the undemocratic behaviour of the US spying apperatus, this also hurts every US tech product abroad.

If I have to choose between potential future spying by china and actual in progress spying by the US, maybe I might go with china for now.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#56

Post by atoav »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #51
atoav wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly the five eyes couldn’t proof a single backdoor in Huawei products while the history of backdoors in US hardware is quite well documented. If the five eyes hadn’t shown time and time again, that they don’t give a damn about the laws and rights of other democratic nations, and quite definitly use “security” as a token for industrial spionage, I might show more support. But please show more than some fiction in wh…

If they had proof would they disclose it.

That would be worth a lot for cyberdefence also of their own soil. Sadly the US cyberoperations never thought much about defence.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#57

Post by maze-le »

gsich wrote: post #43
ovi256 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Actual evidence of backdoors There doesn't have to be a backdoor today. In the future, whenever they desire, the Chinese gov can ask Huawei for access and they will comply. That's the threat model.

Same applies for other countries, nobody seems to care there. With companies like Cisco you don't even need that, seeing that they have a backdoor released every other week.

That just wrong. I know plenty people, that work on small-scale IT-infrastructure projects for municipal- and city-level administration. Cisco has become a liability as far as network equipment is considered.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#58

Post by j16sdiz »

thisgoodlife wrote: post #25
geezerjay wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are confusing Chinese companies with Chinese government. Is there any difference, really, specially if said company is a corporate arm of China's military?

wait, what? Isn't Huawei a private company?

Huawei is the textbook example of how Chinese government own "private". See, for example, http://csis.org/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Hua...

It is very common to have a "private" company, a party division and government department share a same registration address / contact person in China.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#59

Post by dirtyid »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #39
dirtyid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia was firm ban before US push due to past strains with China. US is obviously going to ban. UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow al…

NZ has an effective ban on Huawei kit aiui

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new-zealand-sa...

Unless there's newer development. Like I said UK/CAN/NZ all waffled withing days of each other around time of article. It could just be theatre to help China save face, maintain trade while nominally soft ban. US declared after that they would not share intelligence with countries with Huawei kit. I don't think there's been development since. Who knows, if US trade deal with China screws over Five Eye allies - speculation that China is directing money from Canada canola oil, Australia coal to US coal and agriculture - maybe allies with be frustrated enough for the program to collapse.

Re: Huawei Sues U.S. as a ‘Last Resort’ Over What It Calls an Unfair Ban

#60

Post by dirtyid »

zaphirplane wrote: post #23
dirtyid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO Huawei's just seeking to rehabilitate their image, if the US refuses to publicly release evidence that contradicts the preponderance of sources that couldn't find back doors, then the entire US campaign against Huawei can be dismissed as a smear campaign. It's going to make US look dirty/petty and allows Huawei/China to save face. Huawei shares source code with GCHQ and US have already hacked into Huawei internal…

What evidence is required to support the statement “a Chinese company will do whatever it’s told to do by the communist party irrespective of the law” The people that keep trying to defend that, have special Place with the people defending tobacco companies.

Not defending, just saying that's the kind of alternative security narrative that can sway countries not in an urgent existential struggle against Chinese ascent - aka US. The rest of the world, 190+ countries do not have the same risk-benefit analysis as the US. They mostly share the position of, both superpowers are going to spy on me, so maybe choose to buy infrastructure from the one that's cheaper, with a smaller military, that hasn't been used in active foreign aggression in 40 years.
Post reply on HN