Slashdot Mirror
US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. government has cited national security as a reason not to let Chinese company Huawei build an LTE public safety network. They're worried about Huawei's close ties to the Chinese government and the threat of any devices Huawei manufactures being bugged. Of course, whoever gets the contract is going to be manufacturing their devices in China anyway, but it looks like a Chinese company won't be allowed to deploy the infrastructure."
... for advertising with a lot of important and big customers' "success stories" (such as TGV) that were in fact never real customers of Huawei/were never worth a success story. Guess they really are trying hard to set foot 'here'. (http://www.automatiseringgids.nl/nieuws/2011/41/%E2%80%98huawei-jokt-over-europese-klanten%E2%80%99)
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
/tinfoil hat
Would be "The Fed wants to maintain its monopoly on cellphone snooping".
Free market, right?
So the next step is that the Chinese block sales of semiconductors to the US citing national security as the reason...
Let's see, so the people that need a strong working network get the choice of Motorola or Huawei? Can I throw my hat in the ring and offer them tin cans and miles of string? At least my solution would work.
Makes you wonder sometimes why the US gets so suspicions of other nations some times! You need to look at an accusation sometimes and figure out if this is telling you more about the accuser than the accused!
You know, it was like the whole security thing. They put people through hell and all the while, the borders remain free and open to the drug trade and to illegal workers... because you know, "terrorists" would never use those channels to get into the US to do their dirty work right?
Now they are saying "oh no! we can't let the chinese set up things here... they are too close to the chinese government!" Meanwhile, all manufacturing is in China having who-knows-what installed along with the stuff they are making.
The risks are obvious to see and they pretend they don't see them. If the government really wanted security, it would do what it wants to do regardless of how much it would upset the 1%. That 1% has interests in all of the things above including the drug trade, illegal workers and manufacturing in China. It's all about the money and profits. Threaten those and you should fear for your life.
Even if we assume they're both tainted with devious Chinese spyware (and I'm not sure that China would want to harm such a huge and valuable debtor, by the way) which of these sounds like a bigger threat:
1. A large Chinese-built wireless network which the government can monitor or shut down with relative ease.
2. A vast semi-regulated sea of Chinese-built devices of all kinds flowing into the US, too many to be effectively controlled or destroyed, many of them used by emergency and government workers.
Come on, people. Maybe China is a threat to us and maybe it isn't, but if there's a problem, at least attack it in a logical way.
So the US is basically just trusting that whoever puts the network in won't take advantage of the situation? That's frightening.
We're worried about the Chinese (perhaps understandably), but we can't prevent our own companies from interfering with the military?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared#Interference_issues
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
All of this equipment is already manufactured in China, so what's the difference who installs it?
it's ok for the U.S. govt to *actually* have warrantless wiretapping, but it's not ok to have china *maybe* doing warrantless wiretapping?
Under US laws? Yes.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The government doesn't like to have competition in bugging the populace.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
How did you get modded up? If we do wiretapping of telecom networks ESP. SECURED networks, in another nation, that would be called .... SPYING. And NO nation sees that as being legal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
India had blocked Huawei and basically all chinese telecom players for a while over the same/similar reason, but has now reallowed them (dont know the exact reason why)
I realize you're trying for irony or critical whatever, but...this is an important distinction.
When the US gov't does it. It [IMO] is a constitutional violation. But, being a government--and the most powerful one on the planet... it is de jure legal.
When a nation does it to another nation it's espionage. That's illegal everywhere.
Last but not least--when a nation does it the government of a nation it does not officially recognize... well, you've probably got government contractors involved and it's free enterprise.
To be candid, the more interesting part to me here is that rather than addressing the problem, they've merely multiplied the cost to play.
Effectively--they've shut out Tukey / Iran, but not China, and probably not India or Pakistan.
Really, it's nearly a non-issue anyway... people worry about hardware bugs... But my understanding is that LTE is an all IP protocol which will have a session border controller (LI effectively built into protocol) in the deployment at various points.
Have you talked to someone at a telco helpdesk lately? They don't need bugs--they just need one of their expats/foreign nationals willing to share access.
Yes, pretty much every country considers being spied on by other countries to not be okay. Are you an idiot?
Meh, they'd prefer to overpay Northrop or Lockheed (or similar) to build it. In turn, they will end up subcontracting it out to Huawei. All the expense of doing it ourselves with the value add of the complete insecurity of having had China do it.
The intelligence services of a few countries have found ties between Huawei and the Chinese military and intelligence services. Currently, the Chinese are the biggest spy threat to the US. Not allowing this company to build our communications infrastructure sounds like a reasonable, safe decision.
In England, we're actually encouraging them into our 4G networks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/cornish_lte/
Your argument has a double edge to it. In order to undercut your competitor you buy cheaper. If the government "adjusts" Trade Balances to shift in one direction or another, that affects the cost of the product. As a purchasing community, the U.S. is tapped. It is getting to the point that business models that rely on outside usage of goods and services are beginning to optimize to the point of extinction. A review of the H.P. business model clearly shows that when a corporation optimizes profit and ignores the 60 month and 120 month business plan, that business model pays a heavy price. What I'm not convinced about is when the government ignores the phrase, "Default/Foreclosure/Auction." Businesses go out of business, that is not necessarily the fault of the people. And the short sightedness of business is definitely not the fault of the people.
I believe that the parent comment believes that the bad guys are just a couple goofs. That would be a grave decision. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "Patriot Act;" Its short sited nature concerns me, go figure.
after stuxnet? :)
Totally feasible, would slashdot feel better if they were excluding muslims rather than the Chinese? :)
exploding cell phones... great now its not just cancer i have to worry about!
I guess it comes down to who do you wan ta trust? The man you lected? Or the man who caps ya if you both disagree?
To buy anything Chinese is to fully with all your heart endorse Communism.
Why don't we build our own damn LTE network?
They are called IPhones. A damaged battery tended to go boom.
Have you considered they may have been blocked "because" they would not allow the US Government to install bugged devices? It may not be "China is a threat". It may be "Huawei won't let us spy".
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
Patriot act is a NIGHTMARE. Parts of it were needed, but it was obviously designed to allow the feds far more abilities than was needed. And the lack of oversight on it is just amazing. Personally, I was shocked and disgusted that Obama did not at least put more leashes on it. OTH, I expected such behavior out of W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. In fact, for that group, I expected far worse. My guess is that they KNEW that they could not get by with worse than what they had.
HOWEVER, the fact that my gov. spies on me, does not mean that I want a nation whose gov. sees itself as being in a cold war with the west, spying on any nation in the west, let alone ours.
Sadly, there are plenty of idiots, like lkcl, whom do not recognize the difference, nor understand the implications.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Cisco actually has equipment here that is manufactured here for sale to various groups of the USA. I would guess that they also sell to EU gov. as well. The feds SHOULD put a requirement that all of the equipment for backbones and TLAs be required to have all equipment manufactured in friendly nations that have decent oversight. It does not have to be in America, but, it needs to occur in NATO nations, Australia, Japan, etc. And even Japan and Australia have some lacks security issues that will need to be solved first.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Their equipment is barely able to communicate with other components from the same company...
it should be built by the government, with government engineers and workers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"but there is no shown proof yet."
Pay attention.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/25/60minutes/main6242498.shtml
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3319656
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/09/26/amsc-spy-pleads-guilty.html
and so on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The US intelligence community is simply applying Tom Clancy's Law to this situation: If it sounds like the prologue to one of his novels, then it is a bad idea.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Be careful what you call "law". Unconstitutional legislation or action by the government is technically not "law", even though it looks and smells like one. Although it sometimes operates under the color of law until it eventually gets shut down.
Even the idea that "parts of it were needed" is highly questionable.
I guess the first thing that I wince at, is just its name; that short sightedness mocks the historic record.
There is a Russian company named Netcracker doing telecom network provisioning for a number of telephone companies around the world including Sprint, Telus and Shaw (in Canada), and others in other places (at least their development shop was in Russia the last project where I dealt with them). Considering Comrade Putin is back in charge (after forcing changes to the constitution there), shouldn't we now be getting paranoid over that? Or how about with the current trend in pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic feelings, shouldn't we be paranoid about Israel, since Amdocs is pretty much the biggest software vendor in the world for telco related companies?
The point is, if America is going to allow all its companies to outsource its technology overseas, why are they closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Like someone else pointed out, most the electronics that will be used for this are likely made in China. And who says the software is the only place that security holes can be placed. They could put it in the firmware or maybe built right into the hardware. Thinking that anyone can prevent the Chinese government from doing this if they really wanted to is pretty naive considering their direct accessibility .
If they are going to make any case against this company that makes sense to me, it would be that it isn't fair to allow a state run/sponsored/funded company to compete in bids against companies that have to financially stand on their own two feet.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Parts of it really were needed. The fact is that AQ shifts all over the net and phones. Heck, they have even quit encrypting since it points directly at them and allows us the ability to know where to look. Our earlier laws were made for a much slower time.
The real issue with Patriot act is that it has been applied far more liberally than it was intended. In fact, it has been mostly used to go after drug dealers, gangs, etc more so then it has been against true terrorists such as AQ. Worse is that we say that we give them the ability to look everywhere, but they are not suppose to use that data for anything EXCEPT for catching terrorists. But that has not been the case. That is why we need REAL limits, scope, and governance on this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"The fact is that AQ shifts all over the net and phones."
That may be so, but even if it is, it does not mean that
"Parts of it really were needed."
... is a conclusion that logically follows.
Please give me specific instances of those "necessary" parts of the Patriot Act having had some real, tangible benefit... like, say, catching terrorists.
If you can give me some, I might be convinced. Otherwise, I will stick with my original position.
Huawei was founded by a former Chinese military engineer, who was LAID OFF by the Chinese military. Since then, it is a PRIVATE company. Otherwise, how do you explain capitalism in China (or high economic growth)?
Move some bases down there and do boot camp on the border.
No, it isn't feasible to move thousands of military bases. There are way too many cities that depend on those bases for their economies, and way too many politicians who depend on the votes from those communities.
Tunnels can be detected (to a point where they'd have to dig too deep to be practical)
You're making this up; you don't actually have any special knowledge about tunnel detection. The rude way of describing this is "talking out of your ass."
if anyone bothers to put the devices and manpower in and flights over the border would make for cheap gunnery practice.
You want the military to shoot down any plane they see crossing the border that they can't identify. You have no idea how insane, impractical, and dangerous this proposal is. You are utterly indifferent to the possibility of innocent people being killed. You are completely unfamiliar with existing FAA rules and you probably couldn't give a coherent definition of what a "flight plan" is. And for some reason you believe this would be "cheap."
You have also never heard of a "narco-sub," and for some reason you think drug smugglers don't already use small aircraft. In other words, it is immediately obvious that you are ignorant of the topic at hand.
We won't ask you to stop posting on Slashdot, but please, from now on, try to follow these simple rules:
* Do not make unsupportable assertions of fact. Do not present your personal opinions as though they were facts. Do not try to speak authoritatively about subjects you have obviously never researched.
* When you violate the above rule, and do accidentally post something asinine, do not dig in your heels and defend your position. Admit that you have not done your research, and let the matter go. You can discuss the topic again, but only after you have done adequate research.
* Do not abuse the word "probably." The word is supposed to mean "statistically likely," not "I am making shit up now."
Also show me evidence of governmental espionage through Huawei's products. I kept hearing accusations against Huawei for years due to prejudice.
2000: I accuse you for stealing! ... um a thief!
2001: I accuse you because of the earlier accusations in 2000!
2002: I accuse you because of what the other guys say in 2001!
2003: I accuse you because you are
There is no stealing at all. Just a total paranoa.
Well, if you want a secure system, don't outsource. It's true at all levels, from your home wireless network to the millitary networks. There's a dearth of jobs in this country as well. One piece of legislation that would solve some of that is simple: the US Millitary may no longer use foreign-sourced materials, equipment, or contractors for any of its goods. Everything, from the rare earths mined to make the chips and components, the labor, and the corporate profits have to be in the US to even be considered. No exceptions. If the US Millitary wants it, it has to be local, or they do without. Yes, it means no more cheap laptops or hard drives, nor any COTS equipment or software, unless they come from the US. It will mean that, at minimum, the US will have a top to bottom supply chain that it can actually monitor, and ensure that those laptops and software aren't spying on us, nor are they capable of being shut off remotely by any enemy. Right now, do you really think that the components that go into our missles, our tanks, our communications gear doesn't have hidden hooks to allow the Chinese, or whatever entity that created the components, to control, destroy, or turn it against us? The US would have to start up a working rare-earths mining and refining industry, set up fab lines and clean rooms, actually hire Americans and train them and keep the working knowledge here, and not send it to who-knows-where. I'd imagine that would impact the job market a bit, in a positive way. It would also help ensure that the equipment we have will keep working if we decide to, say, defend Taiwan against a mainland China attack. But, this won't happen. It might cut into the military contractor's profits, and would certainly cause the politicians the Chinese and others have bought outright to squeal. So long as someone can make a few more bucks by outsourcing, so long as someone can keep the loopholes and exemptions in place, we'll still have this vulnerability, and the jobs (and experience, and knowledge, and capability) will continue to drain out.
Shortly after walls became a defensive technique, tunneling was developed as a counter, then counter-tunneling was developed, able to detect and locate enemy tunnels, without using electronics, which we now have.
I have heard of nacro-subs. They "work" because we aren't looking for them. WW2 radar could pick up reflections from a sub's periscope. A semisubmersible does not magically render all our technology useless by having a catchy name.
Where did I assume they don't already use low flying small aircraft? A low flying Cessna would be a skeet shoot for AAA (and make for some good youtube, I'd pay to see Cessna vs. Phalanx (yes, not actual AAA but one can dream)). Low and slow may avoid radar but with an actual military presence you'd be very vulnerable to plain old vision.
Nice threads you've got by the way. *snicker*
I can buy your companies, invest in your infrastructure; but you can't -- let's play by the rules, my rules!
I can denounce your currency manipulations, passing laws to force you to appreciate Yuan, but I myself can print $$, dishing out QE1/QE2 -- let's play by the rules, my FUCKING rules!
At least this time you managed to obey the third rule.
Be careful what you call "law". Unconstitutional legislation or action by the government is technically not "law", even though it looks and smells like one. Although it sometimes operates under the color of law until it eventually gets shut down.
Tell that to the guards while you cool your heels in the brig at Quantico.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
That has nothing to do with my point. I already stated that "sometimes it operates under the color of law".
But that still does not make it legal, and that does not prevent you from trying to get compensation if it's ever done to you.
Well, it's all good and well to pontificate. We'll see if Bradley Manning has the opportunity to get "compensation".
I am not a lawyer, and probably neither are you. I think it's a bit silly to be quoting popular isolated out of context bits and pieces of complex constitutional nuggets. The *reality* is that in the end, the government *will* prevail and if not, no one in particular will be punished, and folks like Manning will still spend many many years in prison for which there realliy is no adequate financial compensation.
Seriously, would YOU trade a few million (after the lawyers are done with it) for 20 or 30 years in prison? Even 10? If you think you would accept tha deal, you're no a sane person.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"Well, it's all good and well to pontificate."
Yes, apparently it is, since you're doing plenty of it.
I didn't say it was right. I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say you would win *IF* you tried to get compensation. But somehow you seem to assume I stated all those things anyway, even though they don't appear anywhere here in print.
I am as sympathetic with Bradley Manning as you are, perhaps even more so. But that still has nothing to do with the point I did make, and I still never stated any of those other things.
So why don't you shut off your own pontificating?
I thought Ren Zhengfei was laid off as I have heard of military force reduction in the earlier years. I didn't know that "retired" is the official word for Ren Zhengfei who looked very younger than I thought. I later checked the wikipedia article and, yeah, you were right about his retirement. Didn't know that he joined the communist party. I'm happy that he joined it as the party was used to "not allowing capitalists to join."
When it comes to capitalism, I can vouch for it. When I was a toddler, each family can have only one blanket, but the winter was brutally cold in Northern China and the blanket was thin. Even my early family friend borrowed our blanket and never returned it. Nowadays, you can buy as many blankets as you want. That's capitalism.
I'd rather not to see rare earth being exported so much to other countries because of environmental pollution. I wouldn't want environmental pollution in my hometown. Communism was already dead over three decades ago. Communism requires iron-bowl system -- a cradle-to-grave support system. Now, it is harsh job survival environment, either you keep working or you will be fired for not doing a job -- not even vacation days can be used up (don't try to use up vacation days in China on job).
The wages vary geographically. In villages, the wages are low, but people are still happy cause they have low-cost living expenses too (they don't pay taxes too). In major cities, food and living costs are expensive. For example, beef in Shanghai is expensive as beef in the United States. I don't worry about bubbles in China as the Chinese people and the Chinese government are handling bubbles.
economy wasn't subsized in some ways. The government did not tax people, just tax rich people and corporations (low budget compared to US's budget). The United States did not give China Market Economy Status. Without that status, the United States continue to measure goods in China by looking at prices in other countries instead of China. That's how they declared goods as dumping.
At least the company is in the hands of Chinese employees and executives. Having read the itnews.com.au article, I believe that the company is as private as the company I left a few years ago. My former company was not listed in the stock market because it was wholly-owned by one or two Japanese executives.
I did not know much about Air America and I later checked the wikipedia article. Wow, it was owned by CIA. I am pretty sure that Huawei is different as it is now #2 company (I forget in which field) and its future is as bright as Apple's future or Google's future. Although some of its employees are foreign, Huawei lift 100,000 employees out of poverty by giving them jobs with perks and benefits. Plus even its CEO admired the American capitalism and have read books on it.