Slashdot Mirror


Australian Gov't Bans Huawei From National Network Bids

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like paranoia regarding Chinese cyber-espionage is riding sky-high within the Australian Government. It was confirmed today that the country's Attorney-General's Department had banned Chinese networking vendor Huawei (the number two telco networking equipment vendor globally) from bidding for work supplying equipment to the government's $50 billion National Broadband Network universal fibre project. The unprecedented move comes despite Huawei offering to share its source code with security officials, and despite Huawei not being accused of breaking any laws in Australia. Questions over the legality of the Government's move are already being raised."

168 comments

  1. Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Surely some capitalist ideologue must be spinning in his grave...hey, I bet that could be harnessed to drive a generator.

    He won't mind, it's a free market solution!

  2. Are the concerns valid? by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think Huawei was also left out of consideration when AT&T and Verizon were looking to build more LTE towers in the US. Or was that the federal government didn't want their equipment out of this fear?

    Would love if someone clarified this.

    1. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I believe that India too had blacklisted Huawei some years earlier, and a lot of foreign countries would be nervous about a company that's in bed w/ the Beijing regime being in charge of setting up their infrastructure.

    2. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Code audits don't reveal backdoors in hardware. I've disassembled malicious silicon from China. I don't really trust anything built in their fabs now. Personal phone calls, sure. Corporate, well, just assume you've been compromised.

    3. Re:Are the concerns valid? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?

    4. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is 'malicious silicon'?

    5. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?

      It is about preserving our way of life. China is a Marxist–Leninist single-party state (nominally communist). The US and Australia are both democracies whose constitutions share similar ideas. China has played a big part in the spread of communism, mostly through force.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    6. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >The US and Australia are both democracies

      Oh, you. The US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

    7. Re:Are the concerns valid? by CrackedButter · · Score: 2

      It is about preserving our way of life. The US is a corporatist two party state (nominally democratic). The US and Australia are both corporatacies whose constitutions share similar ideas. The US has played a big part in maintaining their ideals, mostly through force.

    8. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      Oh, you. The US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

      Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:
      While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.
      The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.
      Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    9. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other AC refers to physical hardware that has been designed to perform some secret additional function that benefits the manufacturer at the expense of the buyer. For example, an encryption chip which always generates code that can additionally be decrypted with the manufacturer's key, or military equipment which an be remotely disabled by the country which made it. Kinda like DRM.

    10. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would love if someone clarified this for me."

      Then you've come to the wrong place.

    11. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see Steal Land from natives CHECK
      Commit genocide against natives CHECK
      Pretend to have Democracy CHECK
      Pretend to have freedom CHECK
      Wage war against foreign countries with no good reason CHECK
      Threat every nation on the planet with Nuclear Weapons and build bases on their door steps CHECK

      America and Australia Best of Friends since Europeans Discovered Guns. See China in a roundabout way you really only have yourself to blame:-) Next time you invent something makes sure it can kill someone.

       

    12. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Code audits don't reveal backdoors in hardware. I've disassembled malicious silicon from China. I don't really trust anything built in their fabs now. Personal phone calls, sure. Corporate, well, just assume you've been compromised.

      Are there any publicly available links that you could point interested parties to?

    13. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so many power supply chips seem to have a 10 to 20 ghz antenna in them? Remote shutdown maybe?

    14. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the early part of 2000 China came up with its own variation of popular standards for networking and consumer electronics.

      Around 2003 Chinese Govt came up with It's own standards for WiFi security called WAPI. WAPI support was mandatory for any WIFi equipment sole in china.
      When the standard was introduced the deal was that Semiconductor manufacturers would hand over their RTL code to one of the 11 companies selected by the chinese government. These companies would insert the WAPI code and hand over the netlist (think of it as compiled executable) which the semiconductor company would then fabricate.

      I personally know of at least a few companies which agreed to the Chinese terms.

      I believe it was a similar case with other standards which china tried to 'localise'.

      Combining what I know with the parent post it is not only hardware made by and in china that is at risk :(

    15. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is a political ally of Australia.

      China is, more or less, an enemy of both. Trading partner, yes, but in terms of computer security, an enemy.

      I work in software security for my day job.

    16. Re:Are the concerns valid? by poity · · Score: 1

      OP didn't say being in bed with DC is ok did he? Is it in any way possible in your world that one could be against both things at the same time? Imagine someone replying to a SOPA thread saying "why is this so bad, but nobody yells and screams when China censors information about political protest?" Think of all the responses accusing that person of going off-topic/trolling/making excuses!

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    17. Re:Are the concerns valid? by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      I had an interesting chat with our MD and while he was in China they told me a very interesting story. He was having dinner with a HK investment and manufacturing company and they were talking about jobs and supplying product within China and dealing with main land officials. So the story goes one day an official comes to the factory in China and during negotiations he asks them to fabricate equipment that will fail at a set time. The logic being that once the product fails people will have to buy another one thus this creates jobs. Well our friend in HK said to the official he will think about it then never contacted the guy again because we pride our selves on making solid ISO spec products. Now this raises the question if the Chinese officials would attempt to tamper with a small manufacturer that "they do not own" or have even a partial ownership of then what would they be tempted to do with a company they actually owned.

    18. Re:Are the concerns valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good points here. Then again, wouldn't our smartphones and other devices made in China be tampered with already?

      I mean, they may not be doing it now, but you have a point about them doing this in the future.

  3. national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    National security is a serious issue. I can't see any reason to expose our national information infrastructure to a foriegn owed company ... no matter where they're from.

    1. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except of course that the WTO agreements prevent exactly this kind of national/regional/local concerns and specifically prohibits tender discrimination on the basis of national origin of the tendering company. Welcome to the brave new world.

    2. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you in principle, however, pretty much every telecom equipment manufacturer has some sort of Chinese presence. While they're not all *owned* by Chinese, most of them have R&D centers in China where backdoors could be put in.

    3. Re:national security by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Australia has done that in the past.
      http://www.australiandefence.com.au/DB96D390-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9
      Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board let SingTel purchase Optus i.e. Singapore's government-owned telco got the Optus C1/D joint civil/military communications satellite.
      The dedicated military payload paid for by Australia is used for satellite communications in Australian and south-east Asia.
      The payload came from the USA and Japan was the contractor ....
      The main problem for the NBN would be the US/UK/NZ/Canadian/Australian telco choke points- who gets to mirror off every packet in and out of Australia.
      An embassy or joint space project can be contained. Communists deep in your ducts long term is not a good idea.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:national security by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OTOH I know a lot of private companies that have banned huawei. I seriously doubt at this point that this is a coincidence.

      Personally I think they've been caught red-handed in a high-profile network about 2 years ago and the big guys employ people who know the details about this.

    5. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see any reason to expose our national information infrastructure to a foriegn owed company

      So which Aussie companies do you suggest? Remember that they can use only indigenous components and software written in Australia and compiled using Australian compilers ( to avoid any back-doors ) .

    6. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True enough on this. Remember it's not paranoia when you know they're after you(or your stuff, or secrets), it's being smart and protecting your ass.

    7. Re:national security by X.25 · · Score: 2

      Personally I think they've been caught red-handed in a high-profile network about 2 years ago and the big guys employ people who know the details about this.

      You think "they've been caught red-handed"? I mean, do you have ANY information to share, except what your sixth sense tells you?

    8. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Duh Nortel, where have you been?

    9. Re:national security by egork · · Score: 1

      The one that produces Marsupial Lion OS?
      (the "marsupial while" operator is so cute!)

    10. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Australia is usually very open with China and acknowledges them as a crucial trading partner; often bending over backwards to accommodate Chinese business, especially the current government.

      I would think that there must be some serious intelligence information motivating this public slap in the face for a top-tier chinese company.

    11. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is irrelevant that they were being caught. China is doing what all the other nations in their same situation did before: get "inspiration" without caring much for patents and copyright. Then whey they have a big enough portfolio, they do the about face.
      China has the advantage of being a manufacturing giant, and the best place to hide malware is at the hardware level.

    12. Re:national security by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      mod this up.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    13. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia is usually very open with China and acknowledges them as a crucial trading partner; often bending over backwards to accommodate Chinese business, especially the current government.

      I would think that there must be some serious intelligence information motivating this public slap in the face for a top-tier chinese company.

      Yes there is. Roughly 1000 Chinese intelligence operatives working in Australia. It's expected that *any* government is going to further it's interests. It's a wise move by the Australian government.

    14. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National security is a serious issue. I can't see any reason to expose our national information infrastructure to a foriegn owed company ... no matter where they're from.

      Last time I checked, Australia didn't have national network gear manufacturers.

    15. Re:national security by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      there is a can opt out for national security i bet and telecoms infrastructure is probably covered under that and Huawei was caught bang to rights pirating cisco hardware and IOS

    16. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTO agreements are crafted for international trade amongst free market forces. They deal not with areas of sovereignty which are internal to each agreed nation's management of their government. This contract bid targets a project for government controlled network infrastructure. There is no reason for a trade agreement to affect the choice of vendor that a government chooses to employ in a government project. This is not a case of international trade but rather private sector government contracting.

    17. Re:national security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Piss off.

    18. Re:national security by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Correct. Head over to the DSD for details.

  4. Code theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the AG didn't like the accusations that Huawei stole cisco code...

  5. Their source code? by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't they mean Nortel's source code?

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  6. No you mean Cisco's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cisco alleged Huawei stole their tech, but had to drop the suit after the chinese gov't made it uncomfortable for Cisco.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/24/cisco_sues_huawei_over_ip/

    1. Re:No you mean Cisco's by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I typed the post on a mobile. I didn't feel like running a list of telecom companies the Chinese government has ripped off.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    2. Re:No you mean Cisco's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Huawei fuckwads did rip off Cisco's code and I hope their company dies a slow and agnozing death.

  7. Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you have? by Sarusa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Huawei is an arm of the Chinese government. Officially and in practice. There are members of the Chinese Communist Party permanently assigned to it who monitor correctness and suggest policy (under pain of death). They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

    The only real question is whether anyone gives a damn what's going over Australia's National Broadband Network. If not, then Huawei may be cheaper.

  8. Ban consumer electronics too? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Informative

    Huawei already supplies 3G USB dongles, cheap android phones and tablets to the Aussie consumer. If that's the case, isn't the Chinese govt already harvesting data from our private citizens? Hmmm, paranoia much?

    Conroy might partner with the Chinese on his great firewall of Australia - apparently they have expertise in such matters. ;-)

    1. Re:Ban consumer electronics too? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Private citizens is fine, its the new rooms or past "exchanges" near the mil bases in suburbia that may prove more interesting.
      Australia does not really have a lot of sat bandwidth so most of its everyday mil chat might go down unique telco like networks.
      Or expose its neat new US packet sniffers to another layer of contractors and risk US anger...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Ban consumer electronics too? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Put them all on the IMEI blacklist. Problem solved.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, their equipment sucks walrus balls. I've had the dubious joy of using some of their shitty switches and routers as a luser in Eastern Europe, where they are the king of supply for virtually every ISP, and I've never had as much trouble. No, most of the time it wasn't due to misconfiguration.

  10. Maybe the Oz govt doesn't want to censor us? by barv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just bet that Huawei networking has really neat built in ways to censor all sorts of content from pirated stuff, child porn, maybe even (gasp!) political comments. So maybe our (Oz) government really isn't interested in censorship?

    Nah. On second thoughts, they were just too dumb to notice the opportunity.

  11. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by davester666 · · Score: 0

    Party Members are partial to boobies, but with the new planned decency filter, there really will be no need to monitor what's going on down under.

    They all are just a bunch of do-nothing criminals.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  12. No, he means Nortel's by Collapsing+Empire · · Score: 3

    See here and here.

    But the Cisco incident is relevant too.

    1. Re:No, he means Nortel's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      lightreading.com doesn't say that Huawei is behind it. I was curious about the relationship between Huawei and Nortel. So, I dug around the Internet and found this relevant article see here. It says that Nortel's products were shoddy enough to cause it to lose a lot of clients. So, it proposed a joint venture with Huawei in order to resell Huawei products as Nortel products. But it went bankrupted before the proposal happened. Sound like Nortel was trying to steal Huawei's source code to save itself from bankruptcy.

    2. Re:No, he means Nortel's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you guys got it wrong. you should check out which contracting firms huawei bought and who they worked before.

  13. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

    Any company or government will spy and steal if they think (reward > (risk * fine)). The way to deal with this is to require the source code to be inspected and encrypt anything important because you never know who is listening along the fiber (in fact, even if you own the ISP and the fiber there still could be someone listening on your traffic, so encrypt it anyhow).

  14. "We'll just put mal-/spy-ware into our modems" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd say the gov't is a bit late in acting...

    Lots of Huawei mobile Internet products are already in use across AU.

  15. Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Questions over the legality of the Government's move are already being raised.

    ...by people who support Huawei, most likely. Unfortunately for Huawei's defenders in Australia (and outside of Australia as evidenced by those), it puts them in the open as standing against their own country and having a greater allegiance for the PRC.

    Stand strong Australia, and resist the urge to bend to the will of China. They will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stand strong Australia, and resist the urge to bend to the will of China. They will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

      Grow up...

    2. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      ...it puts them in the open as standing against their own country and having a greater allegiance for the PRC.

      This is bullshit. Arguing for the responsible usage of public funds is being completely for one's own country. Furthermore, the blacklisting of any entity (person or company) due to baseless allegations by unknown sources with absolutely no proof is completely abhorrent and counter to Australian values.

    3. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Since they put such an idiot as Alexander Downer on their board I suspect they are either incompetant or up to no good :)
      Sadly, well connected born to the purple idiots that couldn't even work in an iron lung get put in such positions when a company wants to exert influence on a political party or government. You'd think they could find someone better than Downer though. Maybe he knows where some bodies are buried or something, I can't understand his influence otherwise, anybody that owed his grandfather anything would be dead by now.

    4. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a smart move to ban one competitor because it will cost Australian citizens more taxpayer dollars on higher-priced low-quality equipments coming from other vendors who just manufacture them in China too.

    5. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      They [sic: China] will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

      If China maintain that Australia has contravened the Marrakech Agreement, I would expect China to consider trade sanctions such as refusing to export consumer tech to Australia or a temporary ban on resources from Australia.
      The former type would be a minor inconvenience for distributors, retailers and consumers that will soon be countered by parallel importing and pressure from the contracting party (i.e. Apple).
      The latter type would severely cripple our economy, having a devastating affect on the markets and local mining communities. China is believed to have been stockpiling for some time. Perhaps the only thing that will deter them from taking this course of action will be China's large stake in Australian resource shares.

      Despite my suspicions, I have a lot of Huawei equipment for personal use as it is cheap and reliable. I wouldn't even consider it for anything to do with business or public infrastructure

      Despite the WTO agreements in place, I believe Australia has a firm legal standing. We are not discriminating against a products manufactured in China, we are discriminating against a product designed, manufactured and controlled by a quasi-state-owned company directly involved in surveillance, censorship, oppression and espionage.
      If an American company placed a tender, we wouldn't think twice. If a technology branch of the NSA placed a tender, we would, as diplomatically as possible, tell them to shove their tender up their ass despite being our closest ally that we already share intel on our citizens with.
      I wonder if we had an open-source, open-specification requirement in the tender if all these companies would still bid.
      I would suspect all those, except the ones with something to hide, would.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    6. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huawei does have something to meet an open-source open-specification requirement in the tender. It went through the process with UK by showing all of its source code to auditors. Huawei didn't even submit a bid for NBN before ban went into effect. That is how paranoid some Australian officials are.

    7. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I can't understand his influence
      Nevertheless, you seem pretty opinionated about it!
      May be something to do with being Australia's longest serving Foreign Minister.

      But lets face it. All politicians are arseholes, its part of the job description. And the never ending gravy train of free lifetime domestic air travel and cushy Directorships like he and John Brumby have picked up here are just the way politics works - for both sides.

    8. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by X.25 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...by people who support Huawei, most likely. Unfortunately for Huawei's defenders in Australia (and outside of Australia as evidenced by those), it puts them in the open as standing against their own country and having a greater allegiance for the PRC.

      Stand strong Australia, and resist the urge to bend to the will of China. They will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

      Are you ok, mate?

      I've seen members of various sects being more sane than you.

      Here we are, year 2012, and the same people who've been stealing and helping their cronies are still scaring the "free world" in the same way like they've done for past 60 years.

      Don't mind them putting the cash in pockets, just please be scared of evil .

      Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with 'national security' is incredibly dumb.

      This has to do with kickbacks and lobbying.

      Oh look - there is a communist hanging off your chandelier!

    9. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by X.25 · · Score: 1

      If an American company placed a tender, we wouldn't think twice. If a technology branch of the NSA placed a tender, we would, as diplomatically as possible, tell them to shove their tender up their ass despite being our closest ally that we already share intel on our citizens with.
        I wonder if we had an open-source, open-specification requirement in the tender if all these companies would still bid.
        I would suspect all those, except the ones with something to hide, would.

      Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?

      I mean, are you insane or what?

      Peoples' memory is the shortest living thing on this planet.

    10. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by emt377 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, China wouldn't consider a trade war. They'd appeal to the WTO, claiming Australia makes an unreasonable claim to Article XIV.1.a. But clearly 1) this only affects Huawei, not all Chinese network equipment makes, 2) in fact is only coincidentally affecting China with Huawei being a Chinese entity, 3) a government buying secure routing equipment can discriminate based on reputation of vendors.

      The bigger issue is how China can be permitted to continue to allow its state to run businesses while remaining a member of the WTO. It's a problem illuminated by Huawei: the business is suspect, which makes the Chinese government suspect. Which then makes ALL businesses the Chinese government meddles in suspect. Which is tantamount to discrimination based on origin when they're shown the door. The WTO was never intended to include countries like China where there is no constitutional separation between affairs of state and private business.

    11. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a smart move to ban one competitor because it will cost Australian citizens more taxpayer dollars on higher-priced low-quality equipments coming from other vendors who just manufacture them in China too.

      Not only that, by publicly declaring that a major and low-cost competitor is banned has reduced competition and reduced the incentive for the other bidders to keep their prices low. This government is just reckless with money.

    12. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Or people who support free trade. It's not about any perceived allegiance to the PRC but "allegiance" to Huawei's competitors. Do you think every country needs to be protectionist and block foreign companies from competing with national ones?

    13. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 1

      Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?

      I am sure they will. I believe a tech company is more likely to design their products to perform their advertised primary function (i.e. a router does routing) and then will add, to the best of their ability, hidden secondary functions (i.e. kill switch, backdoor, mirroring) at the request of the government.
      A government agency with a tech arm, OTOH, is much more likely to design a product from the ground up whose real purpose is covert infiltration of a specific target, yet, disguise the product as something the target actually wants.

      As a car analogy: You buy an American made car with On-Star. Sure On-Star will allow the US government to track you through this device and may even go as far as killing the engine or setting off an alarm. These are secondary things enabled by the primary purpose of the device.
      Now, let's say a much cheaper yet equivalent car is designed and built by the Tazbekstan government. The same government has a reputation for oppressing its people through use of a car-based surveillance programme. On top of the known surveillance, there are rumours that all Tazbeki cars have the capability to remotely control doorlocks, windows, braking system, steering and MAY even be able to re-route the exhaust to the air-con intake.
      As a government, I wouldn't want these cars on my roads.

      I mean, are you insane or what?

      A little.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    14. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      This is an idiotic move, it will mean less competition and even more expensive prices. At worst they should have let them bid and just dropped their tender in the bin, by removing them completely it will just allow what little competition there is free reign to overcharge us.

    15. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Wait, now I'm confused.

      Are you saying that you would *want* hardware controlled by the PRC government in your core network infrastructure?

      Do you live in China?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    16. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It's a question of wasting money supporting more expensive white companies while hating on the yellow man (or people from a country with one party, rather than two parties who collude and take actions almost indistinguishable from each other).

    17. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Nevertheless, you seem pretty opinionated about it!

      At one point there was almost a weekly Downer stuffup which appeared to be an almost textbook example of why you shouldn't employ somebody just because their grandfather was famous. Petty little crap like hijacking some Pandas given as an exchange with a Queensland koala sanctuary and sending them to a zoo in his own city which is now going broke. That and many other things were seen as a diplomatic insult.

      May be something to do with being Australia's longest serving Foreign Minister.

      The department shrank in responsibility and size dramaticly on his watch - just about everything important was moved to intelligence services and other departments. He turned it into the department of dinner parties.

      like he and John Brumby have picked up here are just the way politics works - for both sides.

      Huawei may be hedging their bets by getting one from each side. It will probably work.

    18. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by toriver · · Score: 2

      No, I am saying that people who think Huawei hardware is controlled by the PRC government should cut down on the pot.

    19. Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      China needs Australia more than vice versa (natural resources and agricultural products trump consumer goods). So no, China would not start a trade war with Australia. Just like no one would start a trade war with Saudi Arabia (or with Iran for that matter if it wasn't a prelude to a shooting war).

  16. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Sarusa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is true - we know AT&T forwards all your packets to the NSA, pissing itself with its eagerness to do so, and the other ISPs probably do so as well.

    In theory you should encrypt everything strongly. But in practice, people overwhelmingly just don't do that.

    So this is the Australian government, who we know wants to inspect every single packet sent in Australia (since they've said so), deciding they want to limit it to companies under their thumb instead of under China's thumb.

  17. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's unlikely to have much to do with the Australian national interest.

    The current Australian government has been making increasingly bizarre decisions, many of which will clearly will be to the detriment of Australian citizens. It's very likely this decision to ban a specific vendor, along with many other recent government mandates are at the behest of their puppet masters.

    “Four Corners” itself noted that the key Labor coup plotters, as revealed in WikiLeaks cables, had long been secretly informing Washington about the internal workings of the Labor government. The same cables make clear that the Obama administration was disenchanted with Rudd over a range of issues, especially his attempts to moderate rising tensions between the US and China. Gillard, on the other hand, was viewed in positive terms as someone who could be counted on to toe Washington’s line.

    http://indymedia.org.au/2012/02/22/the-role-of-the-us-in-the-leadership-crisis-in-the-alp
    http://pirateparty.org.au/2012/03/22/pirate-party-disgusted-by-rampant-government-secrecy/

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  18. Paranoia? by NetNinja · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who needs to be paranoid when companies whos bottom line is to send out work to a low wage paying country so they can turn maddive profits at the expense of national security?

    Cisco doesn't seem to care so why should any other company?

    If you think for one moment that the Chinese governement doesn't have spies working in those factories and making coppies of every single chip and installing doomsday chips in those electronics you are very naive.

    1. Re:Paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, don't buy iPod if you don't want spies installing a-single-word-activated bomb inside.

    2. Re:Paranoia? by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

    3. Re:Paranoia? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      this doomsday chip plan sounds rather expensive...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  19. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having a copy of the source provides only minimal protection. See for example the Underhanded C Code Contest.

    It would be an almost trivial exercise to introduce a vulnerability into a code base that wouldn't be picked up easily by either human or mechanical inspection. Even if such a vulnerability was detected, the vendor could simply claim that it was a coding error, fix it, and get away with it unpunished. By adding a few dozen such vulnerabilities, the vendor could play this game for years without anyone ever being able to prove wrongdoing.

    There's no hope of isolating the equipment or software from the Internet either, because the use-case here is a National Broadband Network, the whole point of which is to create a new public Internet backbone.

  20. Ban chinese anyting from operating in your country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, they are well on their way to take over a lot of shit and honestly I wouldn't want to wake up to a world owned by them.

  21. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way to deal with this is to require the source code to be inspected ...

    If a magician is eager to show you that there's nothing up his sleeves, it's because he doesn't want you to look in his pockets. Or at his hands, particularly between his fingers. Or under his hat with the false lining. Or behind the sofa.

  22. Better safe than sorry by satuon · · Score: 1

    That's a classic case of the 'Better safe than sorry' principle. They're just being prudent. Why take on risks when you can avoid it? It's really the same thing as an employer refusing to hire someone with a criminal record.

    1. Re:Better safe than sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a classic case of the 'Better safe than sorry' principle. They're just being prudent. Why take on risks when you can avoid it? It's really the same thing as an employer refusing to hire someone with a criminal record.

      Huawei isn't a criminal, not by a long shot. There are concerns that Huawei must be an arm of the Chinese government, without any evidence and mostly spread by those who have something to gain by Huawei's demise.

      Let's call a spade a spade. A much better analogy is an employer refusing to hire a black teenager back in the 1950's, why take a risk when you can avoid it. The tragic incident which caused the death of Trayvon Martin should give us pause to not prejudge people/companies based upon historical stereotypes. In the scheme of things, the NBN is nothing compared with a life, but it's a prudent lesson nonetheless.

    2. Re:Better safe than sorry by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Let's not turn this into some weird racial thing. There are very good reasons to be skeptical of letting non-allied governments, or indeed any external governments, near major national communications hardware - especially if it's likely to find use for defense or other strategic purposes.

      One of the single biggest problems with things like this is the hardware side of things: how do you make sure that the black-box hardware you're buying (and any silicon chip is exactly that, at least until you open it up and follow the traces and even then - see the Underhanded C Contest - for why "source code" is a poor metric for determining security in a lot of cases.

      Letting a Chinese company install large orders of hardware into a national network is just idiotic. It may not be that much wiser letting a US company do it, but Australia is allied with the US whereas we still define national security policy by notionally assuming China to be a foe in some capacity.

      Google pulled out of China precisely because they experience demands for surveillance and repeated efforts by suspect government sponsored hackers to invade the privacy of accounts. Letting companies from the same area install network hardware is madness.

  23. How do you know the allegations are baseless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe nobody wants to create a diplomatic incident by mentioning that Huawei employees are sometimes actually Chinese intelligence agents. And they WERE caught red handed trying to steal info elsewhere. Why do you think they've been banned in India?
    There's nothing wrong with their products/ source code. Plenty wrong with the their spies posing as technicians.
    The PRC, by the way, IS completely abhorrent and counter to Australian values. Or human values actually.

    1. Re:How do you know the allegations are baseless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe nobody wants to create a diplomatic incident by mentioning that Huawei employees are sometimes actually Chinese intelligence agents. And they WERE caught red handed trying to steal info elsewhere. Why do you think they've been banned in India?
      There's nothing wrong with their products/ source code. Plenty wrong with the their spies posing as technicians.
      The PRC, by the way, IS completely abhorrent and counter to Australian values. Or human values actually.

      They're baseless because there's no evidence. They're mud-slinging which appears to work due to the rampant fears of "Reds under beds". The allegations may be true, they may be false, but they're baseless and unsupported by evidence. Some Huawei might be intelligence agents (actually in such a large company, it's not improbable, but the same would apply to Cisco/Nortel/Juniper), some Huawei employees might also be space aliens sucking your bodily fluids. Hey, baseless allegations are so easy to make.

      As for why they're banned in India, I dunno, possibly due to protectionism and/or corruption. Evidence, here's an article from the Guardian with a public figure Subramanian Swamy willing to substantiate those complaints about the Indian telecommunication spectrum auctions. Or is the theory that the India government found something nefarious, but didn't want to tell the world and get a leg up China more plausible?

      Now, if you want to ban Huawei because of something their government did, fine. States the grounds publicly and allow all public tenders to be conducted under the same rules. But don't be surprised if no company is able to bid. Meanwhile, for a project that's expected to cost around A$43 billion, this stinks to high heaven of some corrupted backroom dealings wasting Australian taxpayers money.

  24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looser in eastern Europe like me use locally-branded ZTE clone (provided for free from ISP) at last mile.
    HUAWEI ships DSLAM and backbone equipment for national telecom.
    I recall ./ article about Indian govt strictly prohibited HUAWEI equipment in government network.
    Russian network expert (i personally met) consider Indian govt move as right-one.

  25. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    G'day Clive, you fat bastard! How are your "Greens are a CIA plot" claims working out for you? Don't worry - we know what "China First" really means - but we won't tell anyone. *snort*

  26. Re:LOL AUSSIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see your problem.

  27. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Sarusa · · Score: 1

    Oh please. This is /doctrine/. Every company in China which employs more than three party members has a party office on site ( https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/which-way-for-china-part-two/ ). They don't make a secret of this - it's out in the open because you are officially still a communist country and companies are just... convenient and highly profitable: http://www.economist.com/node/21543575

    So don't give me any weasel shit on this, when even your own government still champions it internally.

  28. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by emt377 · · Score: 1

    Source code is useless unless you also build and flash it yourself. Otherwise they can trivially give you one source base to review while they install something quite different in the hardware they ship you. Clearly the vendor has to deal with building, flashing, and support. They know the hardware, have the development resources, QA, etc. If they can't be trusted then they're not a viable equipment source.

  29. Re:Good by Swampash · · Score: 0

    Australia, as a whole is.... peculiar when it comes to Asians.

  30. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    G'day Clive, you fat bastard! How are your "Greens are a CIA plot" claims working out for you?

    Clive's clearly a loon, but he's just a symptom of the problem.

    Check each of the links below and ask yourself "Would this be happening in a country where the actions of the government are in the best interests of its people".

    Let me know your answer. I'll be interested.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/australians-pay-highest-power-prices-says-study/3904024
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3460798.htm
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/21/official-australia-the-best-place-for-miners-in-the-world-again/
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/billionaires-grow-fat-off-lazy-government-20120321-1vij7.html

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  31. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No doubt you will feel cheated if Australia doesn't receive all the benefits of Chinese attention that the United States has received.

    FBI cracks down on China's elusive army of amateur spies

    The FBI estimates that more than 3,000 "front companies" have been established by Chinese nationals in the US specifically to purloin military and economic secrets illegally.

    Let Me Count The Ways China Is Stealing Our Secrets

    China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets

    This CRS Report discusses China’s suspected acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets, including that on the W88, the newest U.S. nuclear warhead.

    China's Secret War

    Of course, why worry?

    China warns Australia against military pact with US
    Aussies fear threat of war with China

  32. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

    >toe Washington's line

    Bless you for getting this phrase right. I was afraid everyone forever was going to write "tow the line", which doesn't even make sense.

  33. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by TomHeal · · Score: 1

    I distinctly remember the previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declaring loudly that he was going to push through a Supertax of about 30% on mining. Next thing we knew there were rumbles and he was ousted very quickly. I personally suspected it was the big mining corporations that lent on the government. Just my two cents.

  34. they are obviously worried about by Chrisq · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    they are obviously worried about having a chink in their IT infrastructure,

    sorry I couldn't resist it

    1. Re:they are obviously worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racism isn't exactly funny...

  35. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    US makers are no less entrenched into US government and government in them. The only difference is xenophobia.

  36. Look nothing up our sleeves by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    So just forget we sold a large, critical chunk of the Telstra to China, and pretend that any company that does tender won't have Chinese ownership.

    Not to worry - the ONA is monitoring what China monitors, with the additional benefit that JIO doesn't have to do it because then JIO would be monitoring rather than, um, who was it JIO does the go-for-ing for again? (sigh)

  37. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

    No doubt you will feel cheated if Australia doesn't receive all the benefits of Chinese attention that the United States has received.

    We're already receiving that same kind of attention from the USA, to the extent that they're choosing our political leadership for us.

    America, China, neither have real Australians interests in mind, so what does it matter who's meddling most?

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  38. OZ should build their own routers by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    why waste billions in buying routers, start and grow your own industry, give grants to local companys to make routers.

    Oh Australia is lazy, it rather spend $2b on USA routers, than spend $1b making its own.

    Its not like its hard to make your own stuff, give lots of $$.

    Just dont use 90% outsourced coders from agencies , hire them fulltime.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  39. Who made WTO king? I didnt vote. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    WTO are not the king pheroh dictator of EARTH.

    They can go screw them selves.

    I mean, why would Iran trust an Israeli company to run their computer control systems for their Nuke plants?

    Or would Israel trust an outsourced Muslim corporation from Dubai to run their water infrastructure?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  40. Its a badly written one sided article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is actually VERY light on facts (like very few from the Government) and note he OPINES that the NBN procurement will be furious - but it seems to be too dificult for him to actually find out...
    Also the Government likely have information they cant share.... Politicians DONT make these decisions - The public servants and lawyers and diplomats make these decisions and they base them on information we will not see. Even if a politicians head falls for it.

    All the right and left wing rhetoric we are inheriting from the USA is BOGUS.
            about 80% of all policy passes in our government without ANY debate. the majority of the rest passes with minor debate (well until Tony Abbot came along anyway - he is actually make it hard for the public service to run the country and the business councils are noticing and complaining and eventually the population will notice too) The few issues that elections rest on actually have very little to do with how the country runs ( Like boat people - a few 000 people a year - has no effect at all on immigration because the bulk come by plane and yet thats what the media focus on - letting the public servants run the country properly)

    I dont mean to sound like a conspiracy - directions are given by the politicians and the people and the public servants ARE people and its a pretty transparent system in many areas... but not in these areas.

  41. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by qwerty765 · · Score: 1

    Oh please. This is /doctrine/. Every company in China which employs more than three party members has a party office on site

    economist.com says 13% of companies have relationships with the Party. It is not every company. I checked Huawei's background and here is the article that says there is no government involvement - no party in Huawei

  42. Their products suck anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I absolutely refuse to use Huawei products. The ones I have seen are of inferior quality.

  43. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's more, China has just forced lawyers to swear allegiance to the Communist Party.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17470818

    That's not just massively distasteful in regards to activists and regular people, that has enormous implications for doing business in China.

    Business means contracts, and contracts means contract lawyers. Making lawyers hold allegiance to the Party and not the rule of law is a major spoke in the wheel of doing business with China. Australia has already found the current system is pretty shaky with the Rio Tinto "spy" debacle. That's enough to make Huawei unattractive, but with the business environment actually getting worse, forget it -- not interested at all.

  44. What's Cookin' Doc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, just maybe Australian government know what's cookin.

  45. Only the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tip of the iceberg, and they're hardly the first IT organization looking skeptically at entanglement with China at the networking layer.

    There's a Cyber Cold War going on in case you didn't know, and when a (nearly inevitable) major public incident occurs that casts China in a more suspicious light, a lot of people recently bought gear are going to be backtracking and looking for other options.

  46. Good for aussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can only be good for aussies. Huawei's products typically underperform. The only advantage is cost but I question that in the long term.

  47. its and about spying and national security by gedw99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason that india, Oz and the US blocked using chinese core networking equipment is because that don't have access to the firmware or can check that what they are told is the firware really is what is burned into the hardware.

    Also they can have other dedicated stuff in the hardware that n one would know about.

    so they worry that their core networks can be hacked by the chinese government.

    this is why they are banned.

    this is NOT a solution though. We have to leanr to co-operate.
    The ONLY way that these types of crazy situation can be fixed is by social and democratic change world wide

    G

  48. Red Chinese are compulsive thieves and liars by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Red Chinese are culturally compelled to lie compulsively and steal anything that isn't nailed down. They hate us white devils like poison, and will do anything to get one over us.

    They had MALWARE running on the personal PCs of Australias senior political leadership, for crying out loud!

    Huawei is a defacto branch of the Chinese military. The Chinese CANNOT be trusted. Full stop.

    1. Re:Red Chinese are compulsive thieves and liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had MALWARE running on the personal PCs of Australias senior political leadership, for crying out loud!
      Australian politicians download punch the monkey, red china is eeeeeeevviiiillllllllll. Also you are a fucking idiot. Full. Stop.

  49. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by bug1 · · Score: 1

    So... the governments bad because there are 3 rich people and our transmission lines are being upgraded ?

    "The price increases have many drivers, the biggest of which to date have been the massive investment in transmission and distribution networks and movements in the wholesale markets driven by drought and the mining boom. The increased network investment is driven by general demand growth, surging peak demand, higher reliability standards and ageing legacy networks." - http://www.jtsolar.com.au/news/why_electricity_is_so_expensive.html

    Hey, but dont let the truth and objectivity get in the way of a crazy anti-government rant.

  50. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you start involving vendor supplied hardware, the source code is only half the information. You still need to know what the hardware is doing. Similar to the laptopn anti-theft products, if there is a chip in the hardware that is independent of the software supplied, it is difficult to notice. Yet this would allow the manufacturer to still have some control of the system. In order to fully know there is no espionage involved, you would have to examine down to the chips themselves.

  51. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

    I haven't checked your other links - but I'm too lazy to

    And you're also too lazy to read the white paper in the link, which clearly shows your regurgitation of the government argument is spurious. Other places with similar infrastructure needs have much lower prices e.g.

    "Its research shows that Texas, which has comparable high-peak demand, is among the lowest in the world in terms of cost."

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  52. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >toe Washington's line

    Bless you for getting this phrase right. I was afraid everyone forever was going to write "tow the line", which doesn't even make sense.

    Unless perhaps you were pulling Washington across the Delaware from another boat?

  53. Which paranoia? Huawei drivers are all spywares.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever installed some Huawei sh!t on your system? This is definitely a state-sponsored worldwide spying program.

    Hook *ONE* Huawei device + Huawei driver on your network and use a passive sniffer (a good old physically impossible to detect tap) and see what gives.

    People have *very* good reason to give the finger to these spying devices.
     

  54. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by jgrahn · · Score: 1

    Huawei is an arm of the Chinese government. Officially and in practice. There are members of the Chinese Communist Party permanently assigned to it who monitor correctness and suggest policy (under pain of death). They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

    Citation needed. This isn't North Korea. Huawei's (and for that matter the party's) primary concern is making money, and I doubt this cloak-and-dagger stuff is a good way to accomplish that.

  55. Re:Which paranoia? Huawei drivers are all spywares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever installed some Huawei sh!t on your system?

    Have you? Care to provide some logs with damning evidence or are you just another FUD raiser?

  56. Marxist-Leninist by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    The high pitched whine you hear is Marx spinning in his grave. Lenin would be too, if he wasn't being held down.

    China is what happens when technocrats come to power in a largely illiterate country. Call it any ism you like, but it can be reduced to "democracy? Steam engines don't need democracy, and they work perfectly."

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  57. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    We're already receiving that same kind of attention from the USA, to the extent that they're choosing our political leadership for us.

    You seem confused about the facts. Some Australians may have given notice to US diplomats that this was happening, but that doesn't mean that the US decided who was going to be the Australian PM any more than you complaining to your neighbor about a bad boss at work makes the neighbor responsible when the boss gets fired.

    It was Australians who made the choice, and Australians who voted on who would be the PM, not the US.

    Australian coup: the rise and fall of Kevin Rudd

    The boy-faced former diplomat was unceremoniously dumped by senior Labour Party power brokers after failing to secure a lift in the opinion polls and angering MPs by his refusal to consult on important policies.

    America, China, neither have real Australians interests in mind, so what does it matter who's meddling most?

    Based on the content that is at the link, I think I might see where you are going wrong on this point:

    . . . the recent Four Corners program has revealed further evidence that the U.S. Government had advance notice of the coup against Rudd. I highly recommend the following article and others on the World Socialist Website to get the real story about Australian politics - make no mistake there is far more than a clash of personalities going on in Canberra right now

    Maybe these will help:

    How to Kill Poverty
    The Black Book of Communism - - - One of the reviews
    Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
    The Road from 1989

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  58. Some interesting points from the original article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original article can be found here

    Here is what I found interesting.

    - The ban is supported by the Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. The Attorney-General of Australia is the minister responsible for ASIO (wiki). For those who don't know, ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ) is the equivalent of the CIA in Australia.

    - Huwei's chief executive, Ren Zhengfei, was a member of the People’s Liberation Army

    - "Huawei sources have also hinted that the Chinese government will retaliate strongly against Australia if the ban on the company’s tenders is not lifted"

  59. This is a no brainier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the Chinese agent that has to submit his stories via anonymous... Derp.

    Hey Russia, why don't you outsource your military to the US... We'll do a great job with it! See how letting government run companies into positions of power in your country could be problematic?

  60. Probably just as well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huawei has a tainted record. In LTE field trials for their LTE network solution the company hard-coded downlink throughput measurements indicated by their UE. During the 90's the company became infamous for re-packaging other vendor's network solutions simply pasting their logo over the original manufacturer logo. The company also has a tendency to work their people to exhaustion. While such practices are not illegal and may be considered fair-play in a capitalistic environment, the by-product is a level of "paranoia" with regard to their business practices. IMHO, Huawei would benefit by toning down the questionable practices and leverage the backing they receive from the Chinese government and the pool of genius design engineers and coders available in China proper in addition to leveraging diversity.

  61. Equipment is made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pretty much a moot point. Cisco along with many other manufacturers assemblies their equipment in China. Given what Huawei was alleged to have pulled off in the past, it would not be out of the question that some of the silicon that goes into this networking equipment has been reverse engineered and replaced. It would be expensive, but really you would only have to focus on one company's (Cisco or Juniper) large routing equipment of which much fewer units are sold.

  62. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ironically meaning that you could in fact care less. Yes, well done that poster. I'm sure we were all champing at the bit to recognise their rare and correct rendition of this phrase.

  63. Huawei tried to recruit me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a coder but i said no. I have not worked this hard in life to now give my experience to the same organization that executed the Tianenmen Square massacre.

  64. The picture of naivete by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:

    Assuming this statement is a joke and not a profound display of ignorance:

    While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.

    Yes. Both are festering cesspools of corruption and fascism, from the top all the way to the bottom.

    The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.

    LOL

    Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.

    The only thing 'fascist' is our government. Clearly you have no idea what the word even means.

    You really, really need to open your eyes. I am really shocked that in 2012, there are people out there who still believe as you do.

    1. Re:The picture of naivete by Pooua · · Score: 1

      Western nations, including the U.S. and Australia, have their problems, but China has a far more repressive system. We allow people to meet peacefully together on a regular basis. We don't send tanks to run over peaceful protesters. We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    2. Re:The picture of naivete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Western nations, including the U.S. and Australia, have their problems, but China has a far more repressive system. We allow people to meet peacefully together on a regular basis. We don't send tanks to run over peaceful protesters. We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

      Neither does China, until it's fairly sure they've all come out of the woodwork. In Australia and the US the usual protocol is to wind up the protestors until they cease to be peaceful, then beat them up and charge them with "resisting arrest" or (if resistance is anything more effective than repeatedly headbutting a truncheon) "assaulting a police officer". One of the cleverest tactics I have seen is to set one ethic minority against another and then arrest everyone for racism.

    3. Re:The picture of naivete by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

      I used to think so too. Now I'm not so sure.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  65. Nothing but a cynical political ploy by beaverdownunder · · Score: 0

    The fellow who is now foreign minister of Australia, Bob Carr, also reported today that South Korea was pointing nukes at us, even though he was really referring to a missile test to be possibly conducted somewhere in our general area (between here and the Philippines.

    There was also an election in the Australian state of Queensland today where the Labor government was completely wiped out. (The Federal government is also Labor.)

    So, "We protect you from those Commies" was Australia's order-of-the-day, and I suspect that in the long term, this position will not hold -- especially given that China could simply elect to cease purchasing resources from this country, and send it backward economically twenty years.

    1. Re:Nothing but a cynical political ploy by barv · · Score: 2

      Huh? Didn't he (or you) mean North Korea? Isn't that the rocket the Japanese threaten they will shoot down?

  66. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by chrb · · Score: 1

    To some extent, every large telecomms provider is an arm of its national government... e.g. AT&T was part of the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program. and in return for cosying up to the government, AT&T gets billions a year in tax breaks.

    The real question is whether or not Huawei equipment has backdoors that allow spying, and also whether equipment from other vendors has such backdoors. A vendor should not be disqualified based on vague speculation about what might be possible. There were allegations years ago that the U.S. had used backdoored Cisco equipment to spy on the European Union parliament internal network - should the E.U. have banned Cisco from competitive tenders based on these allegations alone? Should we trust, say, Ericsson switches, even though we know that they come preloaded with "lawful intercept" capability that has been abused in the past?

  67. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This... Also who has the time and money to independently check the source against what is running on the hardware? There's probably a dozen different ways to compile, even if the source is legit. And depending how the network is deployed, maybe only a few dozen compromised routers is all it takes to get some significant spying done. (Those dozens may access hardware backdoors which aren't readily obvious on machines with clean source.) Now try finding those dozens out of hundreds or thousands of units.

  68. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by quantic_oscillation7 · · Score: 0

    yes, because the so called 'friends' are so much better! How Israeli Backdoor Technology Penetrated the U.S. Government's Telecom System and Compromised National Security An Israeli Trojan Horse http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/27/an-israeli-trojan-horse/ Full-Spectrum Penetration Israeli Spying in the United States http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/12/israeli-spying-in-the-united-states/

  69. Paranoia is when you constantly suspect attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prudence is when you prepare for an attack because you have evidence that one may be coming. People mistake the two frequently.

  70. Believe the facts or your lying eyes? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Between the military presence that is on site (in addition to the Huawei executives), the constant building of offices of Huawei near Symantec offices (when that was an issue), the various attempts to get inside First World infrastructure (like those of US/Australia), and various other stuff that isn't known but is a threat, make Huawei a valid target for any country-level ban.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  71. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    When companies are required to be closely integrated with the government as they are with China, government involvement as claimed (and verified) cannot be escaped.

    Doubt it all you want at your peril.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  72. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    A mining tax is totally logical, keep in mind you are robbing future generations to feed today's generation greed. Europe has limited primary resources not because they had few to start with but because they used the cheaply accessible and highly profitable ones up.

    When it comes to essential infrastructure any sound sensible government should always, always drive local production. This establishes and maintains an essential infrastructure skills base and ensures local supplies. Where private industry does not fill that need, rather idiotically sticking ones head in the ground and pretending it's not working, government need to establish government industries to provide that localised manufacturing base for essential industries. Fuck corporate greed, Bugger psychopathic economics, shit on for profit lobbyists, this is about maintaining the essential core infrastructure elements of a country and minimising corruptive and destructive foreign debt.

    Look at all the countries that were economic crippled for foreign supplied and foreign debt driven infrastructure elements. In fact that foreign driven infrastructure development was nothing more than blatant global economic slavery in order for foreign corporations to be able to strip countries of their resources.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  73. Optus use Huawei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Optus (nation's 2nd largest telecoms carrier and one of the NBN resellers) didn't get the memo. They've rolled out Huawei's latest 2G/3G/LTE cabinets in all their mobile tower sites.

  74. Australian companies selling products to Huawei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha what about Australian companies who might be selling products and services into Huawei...
    Goodbye revenue stream, thanks 'Australian' government.

  75. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by sincewhen · · Score: 1

    It was Australians who made the choice, and Australians who voted on who would be the PM, not the US.

    Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

    --
    -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  76. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xenophobia, and the fact that US and AU already share military and political intelligence, and have similar political agendas, making stolen AU intel basically useless to the US, but a gold mine to China.

  77. Some facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some realities on Huawei equipment.

    I was manager of a large software organization that developed network management software for the large telcos worldwide used by companies such as AT&T, Verizon, BT, Swisscom, Telecom Italia, Telecom NZ and Telstra.

    As part of the work we had to deeply analyze network equipment (so that we knew how to do Service Activation and Provisioning) from the major equipment vendors such as Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Juniper, and, of course, Huawei. Huawei is extensively used in Europe telcos simply because it is often an order of magnitude chepaer than competitors.

    As is well known the earlier Huawei devices were compete clones of Cisco equipment. Indeed they through out Cisco IOS error messages and numbers. Later Huawei equipment was much more sophisticated although still using firmware and software close to Cisco's IOS. Nothing unexpected there.

    But what was unexpected is that the Huawei equipment had and has unexplained traps and entry points that appeared to allow access and control of the device. When we asked Huawei about these unusual entry points - some of which required specific and highly unusual credentials and keys we were frequently met with "we'll get back to you" or "they are used for support". In truth though none of the explanations we received (when we occasionally received them from Huawei support usually keen to please) clarified the purpose of these traps.

    My teams of engineers conclude that these points were designed to enable Huawei to take control of the devices.

    IMO the Australian government is doing is wise. I wish ALL government would follow suit. The use of Huawei equipment transcends market forces and letting the market decide. It really become a national security issue.

  78. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, that's because we're schizophrenic, fun lovin' criminals!

  79. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by mjwx · · Score: 1

    "Its research shows that Texas, which has comparable high-peak demand, is among the lowest in the world in terms of cost."

    Lets just ignore that Texas drills and refines it's own oil.

    Also lets ignore that the biggest problem in the Eastern states is the deregulation of the power market which allowed profit centred private corporations to set prices, which was a state government decision, not federal.

    Power, as do most utilities in Australia fall under the banner of state government.

    Also the study was flawed, their 2011 data started in July 2011 seeing as it's not July 2012 yet, which means half of it was projected, not actual costs.

    But lets not let the facts get in the way of an ill informed rant shall we.

    Personally, I pay about $120 per quarter on average. Higher in the summer but lower in the winter (due to Air conditioner use). Instant Electric HW systems are a very, very easy way to burn money though.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  80. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    Lets just ignore that Texas drills and refines it's own oil.

    So does WA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Western_Australia

    Also lets ignore that the biggest problem in the Eastern states is the deregulation of the power market

    Nope, not ignoring, I agree with you. Which is why it's so shocking to see other states like WA following the same broken path.

    That was just one example of many. I'll reiterate: Australian governments, state and federal, are lazy.

    Australia has only two major domestic airlines, two major supermarket chains, four major banks, etc, etc. Consequently we pay near-monopoly rents for everything and the highest power prices in the world. We're frittering away some of the greatest minerals booms in history and allowing billionaires to take it all offshore, all the while submitting to demands from Washington that are to the detriment of Australian citizens.
    The only merit this Labor government can claim is that it's a long way better than the basket cases in opposition. Which is very sad for Australians.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  81. Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    China doesn't need it. All they need is one example of the end product, and they can deduce the rest.

  82. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

    Last I knew it was Australian MPs that voted from the PM, so yes, it is still Australians that vote for the PM. Or has that changed?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  83. Re:Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Mark by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Slight correction:

    Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

    Last I knew it was Australian MPs that voted for the PM, so yes, it is still Australians that vote for the PM. Or has that changed?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  84. encrypt your emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    err... shouldn't govt and military departments be encrypting any sensitve emails and memo's that are sent over open or public networks by default?