Slashdot Mirror


Huawei Using NSA Scandal To Turn Tables On Accusations of Spying

Nerval's Lobster writes "Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecom giant banned from selling to U.S. government agencies due to its alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services, is trying to turn the tables on its accusers by offering itself as a safe haven for customers concerned that the NSA has compromised their own IT vendors. 'We have never been asked to provide access to our technology, or provide any data or information on any citizen or organization to any Government, or their agencies,' Huawei Deputy Chairman Ken Hu said in the introduction to a 52-page white paper on cybersecurity published Oct. 18. Huawei was banned from selling to U.S. government entities and faced barriers to civilian sales following a 2012 report from the U.S. House of Representatives that concluded Huawei's management had not been forthcoming enough to convince committee members to disregard charges it had given Chinese intelligence services backdoors into its secure systems and allowed Chinese intelligence agents to pose as Huawei employees. But the company promises to create test centers where governments and customers can test its products and inspect its services as part of an 'open, transparent and sincere' approach to questions about its alleged ties, according to a statement in the white paper from Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei. Can Huawei actually gain more customers by playing off the Snowden scandal?"

183 comments

  1. It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The bigger a nationally sponsored corporation becomes, the more obviously it becomes an asset. It's like choosing between corrupt police and the mob.

    Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't. This line of reasoning is guaranteed to fool a few morons and nobody else.

    1. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The bigger a nationally sponsored corporation becomes, the more obviously it becomes an asset. It's like choosing between corrupt police and the mob.

      Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't. This line of reasoning is guaranteed to fool a few morons and nobody else.

      Unfortunately, it leaves those morons with a semi-conscious or unconscious choice between being spied on by A (and possibly others) and being spied on by B (and possibly others). The wise person, on the other hand, merely faces a conscious choice between being spied on by A (and possibly others) and being spied on by B (and possibly others).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.

    3. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well of course it does not. But one thing is at least certain, the chance that Huawei hands over everything and everything you give them to the US government is lower than Google doing the same. In return, your chance to be betrayed by Google when it comes to keeping secrets from China is higher.

      In other words, you can essentially choose between the Chinese government knowing everything about you or the US government doing so.

      And now ponder which country your country is more likely to hand you over to.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you can essentially choose between the Chinese government knowing everything about you or the US government doing so.

      How about neither? There is no such dilemma.

    5. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think i can guarantee that Huawei does not hand over anything to the US government, as the US refuses to use their kit :)

      Maybe, and this could be a bit of anti-conspiracy theory here, that the reason the US refuses to use their kit is not because of the usual financial protectionism, nor of some vague bull about sending all your packets to china, but simply because they do not send any packets anywhere - even to the NSA, hence the reason they are banned from use. :)

    6. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.

      This analysis is probably breaks down somewhat for persons of particular interest - their data would be traded. For instance, China might trade your downloading history and identity to the US in return for some dirt on activities of one of the Dalai Lama's acolytes. Neither of these has much direct value to the spy who has it, but it has rather more value to the other. The analysis breaks down more generally for monitored persons in third countries. For instance, if one is in France or Egypt or Brazil, one's data is of interest to both of these protagonists, mostly for trade to third parties in return for other data.

      No spying at all (or no sharing of such data with other agencies) would be preferable for most of us.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    7. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.

      Exactly. Or perhaps your upset with trillion dollar bailouts to the banks while more and more of the middle class slip into poverty so you decide to democratically voice your concerns - only to be picked up the spy dragnet and harassed, fired, put on no-fly and do-not-employ list's (yes, all these things have already happened to key OWS leaders). How long before your crime may be as simple as expressing your dissatisfaction with our ruling elite on forums such as Slashdots. Going by current trends, I would be surprised if it is not already happening.

      Spying by your own goverment is the much greater threat.

    8. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by contrapunctus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the reasons I like slashdot is that I learn stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.
      I did not know about startpage.com, thank you!

    9. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about an international treaty that bans all forms of cyberspying during peace time ? I'm sure both the US and China would protest against it in the security council but at least the choice between A and B would be conscious for everyone.

    10. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Huawei has compromised their equipment for the benefit of the Chinese government then it should be no trouble for the US government to offer proof of that. After all, it's their job to alert US citizens of threats to their privacy. Oh wait, but if they do that then the Chinese might go public with what they know about compromises to US manufactured equipment. So the answer is... keep quiet and sick some xenophobic Congressmen on Huawei, because those leaders have never needed niceties like actual evidence to whip up their low information followers (who spend most of their hours at work playing "Farmville" on Facebook).

    11. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's an extremely paranoid, borderline tin foil hat, conspiracy theory. Given recent information that has helped people determine the veracity of such wild eyed ideas, there's a very good chance you're right.

    12. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use open source like juniper does and develop your own hardware. For you and me that is expensive. For a nation, that is dirt cheap. Interestingly, it also allows them to upgrade their phones cheaply.

    13. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EVERY honest nation would protest, and every nation that went along with it would simply be lying.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Or simply show the proof to a number of our western allies that we trust, who you will notice now prohibit that equipment in their network.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      yeah, and Chinese gov. has no interest in your 401 or bank account or other items. Hey, you might consider the idea of moving to China.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you think that your country wouldn't instantly bend over and ask kindly for some kind of lube (if it's not too much of a burden) if the US gets in the mood, you're delusional.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      25 years ago you'd have gotten a lot of recommendations for how to decrease your tinfoil hat's pressure on your cranium.

      Today, I can't help but consider it an actually plausible reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huawei not handing anything over to the USG is kind of the point.

      Lets say you've got political views that both the PRC and the USG consider a threat, and you get flagged up by both as a result.

      If H hands anything about you over to their government (the PRC), how could that affect you personally? Chances are, it can't. China has no official jurisdiction over most slashdot readers, and it's unlikely that you'll deal directly with a chinese firm unless you work in imports or manufacturing. Those who have most reason to be concerned are those who handle trade secrets or security related secrets that would be profitable for chinese firms; other than espionage, there's not much they can do.

      If a US company hands something about you over to their government (the USG), how could that affect you personally? Most slashdot readers are either based in the US, or live somewhere with extradition treaties with the US, making it relatively easy for them to get their hands on you if they can find any dirt. On top of that the USG can apply extra-judicial pressure, as many of the payment processors the western world relies on are US-based. Consider that Wikileaks had their funding cut via a simple letter - not due process.
      Combine that with manipulating credit reporting agencies and other US firms (eg, sending an NSL to a supplier demanding they drop a contract with your business) as well as manipulating friendly law enforcement agencies (Eg, the New Zealand raids on Dotcom) and there's a lot more potential for information a US firm has about you to bite you in the arse.

      All of this of assumes that someone's become a big enough target to be worth the hassle. If the 'hassle' involved is mitigated, then more people become targets.

    19. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because the NSA spies doesn't prove Huawei doesn't..

      Well, yes.

      buuut one of them has been caught doing so....

      --
      bickerdyke
    20. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      you might consider the idea of moving to China

      The GP isn't saying that the Chinese government is better than the US government. As an American, no matter how critical I am of the US government, I think such ideas are absurd. All the GP is saying is that China doesn't really care about Joe Average American. Why should they? Some powerful or influential people, those with access to important classified or proprietary information, sure, but not Joe Average.

    21. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      THAT was probably his whole point....

      --
      bickerdyke
    22. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Then that simply shows that corruption runs deep and isn't limited to just a few countries. Obvious, but something that many people who blindly trust their government don't realize.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
    23. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      and why not show those proof or at least one of them to public to prove the case?

    24. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Junos a proprietary open source? I guess others could not use it. Am I not right?

    25. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by johanw · · Score: 1

      Why conquer a country when you can do buisiness with them? Throughout history, the Chinese have not been expansionalist during millenia. That's not what can be said from the European invaders whose offspring make up the current US population.

    26. Re: It's not mutually exclusive. by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      +1. No mod points today, so I might as well add a comment:

      As a German, this is an insane situation:

      You brought as democracy and freedom of the press. Now my country is less of a police state than the US. Yes, despite what you hear in ghe US media, this is the case, even though the collaboration between German intelligence services and yours try to circumvent the boundaries we have in place.

      And while your freedom is trashed by overly broad laws that allow sexting teenagers or pissing men to be marked for life as sex offenders, au pairs denied entry and pooping dogs prosecuted using anti terrorist laws, we learn that using any US IT product eaquals handing ALL OF OUR DATA to the NSA.

      Some slashdotters here find that perfectly all right, missing the point that we have the choice to use ownclowd or transfer the cloud to a more trustworthy place, like Germany itself. Yes, I know, not ideal, but better and not on the same scale than the atrocities done by the US. Look at posteo.de, for instance. My next phone might be a nexus were I flash a more trustworthy version of android, leaving all google services out. I could use a european map service with lesser chance for the agencies to track me everywere.

      And if I have the choice between huawei and US products, were one states they were not building back doors and the other states that they can not speak about it, well... And even in paranoid mode, great-parent is right: The chance of obtained information to be used against me as a critic of the actual western society is smaller when the information is in the hands of western agencies than in the hands of the chinese agencies.

      On a rational level it makes sense to prefer the chinese surveillance state over the american one.

      Going back to the beginning of my post.

      To be more afraid of the american government than of the chinese government is a really bad joke. It betrays the honor of the armed forces that saved the world from us and the soldiers that saved us from being taken over by stalinists.

      This absurd situation should not stay.

    27. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It would be reasonable to assume the reason the NSA is badmouthing Huawei is because they wouldn't spy for the NSA. You play ball by their rules or you don't play at all. This doesn't mean Huawei isn't spying for china, however. Given the prevalence of state sponsored/ordered spying it is almost certain they do.

    28. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The government of china has a vested interest in hurting the economy of the USA (and you), in order to replace them as the (only) super power. They might not care about YOU, but they still wish you harm.

    29. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.

      The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.

    30. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You are assuming your country is being coerced to follow the domineering USA, but that's just a smoke screen. This is a multi-country partnership, not a dictatorship. The USA might be getting all the blame but all the western countries are in this together, including the spying and suppression of dissent.

    31. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be unlikely that China and US trade their info as that would allow "the other side" to know their spying capabilities.

    32. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama.

      As a home user, you're not too important to anyone, but China certainly could use your connection as a base to launch attacks from. For businesses, though, China is VERY interested in stealing all the trade secrets they can get their hands on, and passing them to domestic Chinese firms who will be happy to offer competing products at much lower prices. They don't even try to keep that part secret...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    33. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is, do you want your information in the hands of the NSA or China. Personally, I'd prefer China, as they can't do anything to me.

      Actually, that's a false dichotomy, because no doubt the NSA has learned to use the Chinese backdoors, and the Chinese have learned to use the NSA backdoors.

      Finnneee... I guess I'll just have to keep using my OpenBSD routing equipment, installed personally on hardware I've built myself, or from vendors like Soekris and PC Engines that use custom boards. That doesn't preclude backdoors in the software or hardware, but it's narrowed down the opportunities tremendously.

    34. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How about we outlaw murder? Then there will be no more murders.

    35. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Care to show any proof of such ramblings?

    36. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by lgw · · Score: 1

      That right there is the worst part of the NSA stuff. You can't dismiss any tinfoil hat conspiracy theory out of hand any more. It's really frustrating. Did Obama have trouble producing a birth certificate because he's really a shape-shifting Reptoid from Mars? ... probably not? But if so, I'd only really be shocked that NASA was in on it, at this point.

      Trust in government - trust that they're individually somewhat dishonest for personal gain, but not collectively conspiring against the people - is so valuable to society, and is being quickly eroded here.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by davidannis · · Score: 1
      Might be true but if you are a US corporation you should be more afraid of China since they are interested in stealing your trade secrets and handing it to their businesses:

      According to this year's annual report on cyber-crime, Verizon found 96 percent of the world's cyber-espionage, stealing trade secrets and intellectual property, came from one country: China.

      Security specialists say China is using theft as a national development strategy, pilfering software for wind turbines, fiberoptic cable technology, blueprints for weapons systems like the Joint Strike Fighter.

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec13/cybercrime_07-08.html

      Despite all the revelations of NSA spying they are not gathering trade secrets and handing them to American companies. Since neither Cisco nor Huawei is focused on the consumer market your argument takes the wrong perspective.

    38. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Huawei's software is shit (who needs government backdoors when the on-device management webserver will strcpy the request body into a buffer allocated based on the content-length header?) and could benefit from open-sourcing (of course, the whole thing is just a shitty re-implementation of Cisco software anyhow), but the risk is of malicious stuff in the silicon itself. That's actually not too hard; hardware design is tricky in different ways than software design, but a basic backdoor or espionage function is easy enough to embed in the silicon.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    39. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So the question becomes, would you rather be spied on by the USA or by the Chinese?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    40. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Nobody in their right mind uses Huawei kit, because it will cheerfully send packets to anybody who asks. DEFCON 20 had an eye-opening presentation on exactly how shitty their code was, at least on their networking equipment. The upshot? There's no need for a government backdoor when the code quality is so abysmal. A pair of hackers were able to find laughably easy (think 80s- or early 90s-grade vulnerabilities, things like strcpy into small buffers and such) remote exploits and the devices have no exploit mitigations or privilege separation, so anybody who wanted to could root them with ease. Huawei didn't even have a system in place for taking reports of security issues; they just didn't care.

      The government stuff is irrelevant. If you use Huawei, the Chinese can spy on you, the NSA can spy on you, the Papua New Guineans can spy on you, I can spy on you, and I'm pretty sure my cat is smart enough it could spy on you. Their security is that abysmal.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    41. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Znork · · Score: 2

      Um, yes, NSA is engaged in industrial espionage as well. At least Petrobras has been suggested as a target as well as the known ECHELON incidents. Most likely they're just better at hiding it as they tap directly in to the infrastructure rather than engaging in directed intrusions as often.

      And frankly, even as a US corporation I'd say there's cause to worry unless you're the one cosying up with the NSA or your trade secrets might just end up with your competitors who happen to be pals with the right brass.

    42. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      They care about the average Joe American working in certain companies what in the UK we woudl call List X

    43. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      high profile comments about the world needing a new reserve currency? if the US lost its status that woudl hurt all Americans badly

    44. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or simply show the proof to a number of our western allies that we trust, who you will notice now prohibit that equipment in their network.

      and why not show those proof or at least one of them to public to prove the case?

      Because that would mean admitting we hacked Huwei to get the proof we needed and that we had put in backdoors to let us spy on them too.

      The [#1 economic/military power country] will spy on you. That's a given in a non-utopia. The question is do you accept that, or do you want to risk being spied on by the [#2 economic/military power country] and [#N economic/military power country] as well?

    45. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      How about an international treaty that bans all forms of cyberspying during peace time ? I'm sure both the US and China would protest against it in the security council but at least the choice between A and B would be conscious for everyone.

      And how would that help? They have no problem outrightly violating the constitution that defines what they are, so why would we even think about trusting the government to abide by such a treaty?

    46. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Nope, but assuming both spy, whose spying would you care the most? As a home user, the Chinese government has no interest in me. I have no contacts with the Dalai Lama. The US government probably has, since I'm hurting their sponsors by downloading the latest movies.

      Not to mention that if some stupid design-by-bureaucracy algorithm false positive red flags you, the US government is more likely to do something about it, even if it just means putting you on a no-fly list, but it could also mean dragging you in an interrogating you and then slapping you with a NSL so you can't talk about it just because some government employee wants to cover their ass. You're more out of reach of the Chinese government, so they're not going to try to do anything unless you try to enter China or they really think you're doing something major.

      So, if you're in the US, you should buy Huawei, and if you're in China, you should by from the US (I almost wrote Cisco, except they're most likely spying for both the Chinese and US governments). Better yet, if you're in China then buy something made in Taiwan.

    47. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S.A. is rightfully getting most of the blame. There is no country in modern times that've started so many wars, conflicts, propped up dictatorships and created or supported coups. U.S.A. is a country turned corporation that is out of control and remember how one of the more famous partnerships got started, "you're either with us, or against us"?

    48. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument sounds like "since murderers will always exist, there is no point in outlawing murder".

      I beg to differ, such a treaty will put a cork to any justification of mass surveillance as necessary for domestic security.

    49. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have had the misfortune of having to review some of Huawei's source code. It is some of the worst code I have ever had the misfortune of working with. On top of that, it was chock full of GPLed code that had been edited to try and make it non-GPL (even though the GPL headers were still present!) I have also worked with code from Cisco's IOS which looks like a masterpiece by comparison.

    50. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EVERY honest nation would protest

      Every "honest" nation that does mass surveillance you mean ? I can hardly imagine a reason for a nation that does not employ surveillance to insist other nations should spy on it's citizenry.

      If you are saying there are no nations that don't do surveillance, than I'm gonna slap you a large [citation needed] tag.

    51. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah. But for some reason I think I have less to worry about (directly) from the Chinese government that from the US government. I would have thought that neither would be interested in me, but the NSA has proven that incorrect.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    52. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would we even think about trusting the government to abide by such a treaty?

      Trade sanctions seem to work fairly well even against shabby dumps with dysfunctional governments. No access to the global internet for you, America. Of course, the major problem is that unlike human rights violations or WMD proliferation happening in fringe nations, the violators of the cyberspying treaty would be all security council members, thus able to veto any sanction against them.

    53. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      And how do you know startpage.com isn't a foreign shell corp. set up in Denmark by agents of or working for the NSA or something similarly evil? Nothing can be trusted anymore. Nothing.

    54. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > shitty re-implementation of Cisco software anyhow I have heard that re-implementation is a bit of a strong term in some cases (some Huewi kit has identical bugs to the equivalent cisco kit, including in the documentation).

    55. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Why would I fear the Chinese .gov taking my money? IF you try to move to China, what you have to fear is the US .gov taking your money, first by charging you an "exit tax". Then if you try to put money in a foreign bank acct., charging you 30% witholding' due to FATCA. Then if you fuck up one little thing someday while your retired over there just wanting to hang with your Chinese girlfriends and avoid any trouble, like not filing one of the several required forms that must be sent to the IRS and Treasury each year to report not only what taxes you owe, but also where every penny of your money is in every location on the planet lest you become a felon, they will happily seize all your assets. To top it off, if they add new reporting requirements, you won't even be told about it. So make sure to read every line of every 2000 page bill passed by CONgress each year.

    56. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You think that it is corruption for a nation's leaders to know what other governments are up to? In what way?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    57. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the German's had found out that we knew their encryption codes during WWII? Or how about during the Cold war when we had codes of theirs (and I would not be surprised if they had codes of ours)? It is possible without knowing what the other gov was up to, that the cuban missile crisis or other times, might have turned out VERY different.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    58. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      LOL. First, America does not have an exit tax. They DO enforce the capital gains tax IF you renounce your US citizenship (IOW, if you are closing your account, then we want to finalize what you owe: Makes sense to me). Beyond that, it is straight up taxes.
      BTW, China DOES charge an exit tax.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    59. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but CHina's gov, DOES care. Seriously, they do. They want access to any and all information that they can. The difference between how China and US operates, is that we will grab EVERYTHING that we can about foreigners that we suspect that terrorists. Interestingly now, we also check laptops from visitors, but I am not sure what that is about. And the amount of data about Americans is far more limited than you realize. However, if is it in public domain (i.e. unecrypted emails; web pages; postings like these), then it will be considered fair game. Personally, I am fine with that
      China grabs everything that they can. From foreigners, residence, EVERYBODY. Their computer systems are much larger that ours. And yes, as they crack into systems, they steal what they can and leave backdoors for later.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    60. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how many people have access to proprietary or classified information.

      The numbers are so high, and there is so much of it I've reached the conclusion that the only rational explanation is that it's an attempt at obfuscation.

      Heck, snowden should be proof enough about what you say.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    61. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, yes, NSA is engaged in industrial espionage as well. At least Petrobras has been suggested as a target as well as the known ECHELON incidents. Most likely they're just better at hiding it as they tap directly in to the infrastructure rather than engaging in directed intrusions as often.

      And frankly, even as a US corporation I'd say there's cause to worry unless you're the one cosying up with the NSA or your trade secrets might just end up with your competitors who happen to be pals with the right brass.

      oh, Bullshit. You and others have ZERO idea of what you are talking about. You just have fuck loads of conspiracy theories that do not amount to a hill of beans.

    62. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, Bullshit. You and others have ZERO idea of what you are talking about. You just have fuck loads of conspiracy theories that do not amount to a hill of beans

      General Keith Alexander? I didn't know you lurk on /.?

    63. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your government keeps bickering like kindergarten kids and threatening to commit economic suicide and drag the world in a HUGE crisis? Of course SOMEONE has to spank them. Besides, is ** time the world stops paying taxes to the US in the form of dollar transactions.

    64. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you don't need to be a certified public accountant to know that given two administrations, one in debt up to its eyeballs (what is it, $16 TRILLION, sorry 17...wait 18, 19...), and the other flushed with cash, who is in dire straits to exercise the few revenue tool at its disposal.
      American public are going to get screwed by their FAILED government.

    65. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Spying on allies and innocent people is simply wrong. Safety nuts cannot justify their evil.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
    66. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is Huawei is one of the biggest infrastructure builder in the world, and their equipment is used in every country in the world including the United States.
      Another words, your contention is that the governments of every country in the world are not as aware and learned as you are?

    67. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Shit dude, I must be asleep or something bit I have noticed World War II going on around me. So it's either me or you that seems to be a bit mentally adrift. Also their doesn't seem to be a whole bunch of merchant vessel sailing around with nuclear missle's either. It makes a whole lot more sense to deal with the problems we do have than focusing in on the craziness of the military industrial complex and it's insane greed not only fighting imaginary wars but when that fails those psychopaths go out and purposefully start them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    68. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      It's possible that their "big infrastructure" stuff is less hopeless than their commercial-grade (note: not consumer-grade) routers. More likely, though, they're simply harder to attack. The holes might be different, and they might be harder to find or to get yourself in a position to exploit them, but they're probably still there. Nobody who publishes expensive, business-oriented products with code that shitty can be trusted to do better elsewhere.

      As for being smarter, it's entirely possible that I am better informed now than the governments in question were when they ordered that infrastructure, yes. Stupid of them to not get a good security audit of it, but hey, that costs money and takes time and people weren't so paranoid about the Internet in those bad old days. The US government (and several others) are currently refusing to allow Huawei to even submit bids, and have been since approximately the time that the results of this research broke, so it's entirely possible that they are also better-informed now and have acted as they saw necessary.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    69. Re: It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The allies prohibiting the gear does not mean anything. US could have pulled a favor or just told scary stories.

      The facts are like this: NSA spies via US networking equipment.
      The rumours told by the US are like this: China spies using networking equipment from Huawei.

      That's it really. Proven case vs. rumour. Use it how you like.

      What I think is the case that Huawei is not sharing the information with USA and that upsets NSA.

    70. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why conquer a country when you can do buisiness with them?

      Why trade when you can take?

      Throughout history, the Chinese have not been expansionalist during millenia.

      Tell that to Tibet. I'm not sure Taiwan would believe you either.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    71. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, it's funny the tone suddenly takes a turn for the moderate when confronted with facts.
      Now everything is "possible".

      There is obviously a enhanced danger with any closed source/blackbox system, hence open source etc....
      But manufacturers are not going to voluntarily full disclose for obvious intellectual property reasons.

      There are vulnerabilities in any system, both intentional and unintentional.
      Whether it's Huawei, Cisco, Juniper...
      If there weren't, we wouldn't be talking NSA, Edward Snowden,...

    72. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      They may not care about Joe average singularly but they sure want to know about the collective Joes - simply from a commercial point of view if nothing else. How else do they get to anticipate what you might want and develop a market for it?

    73. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The USA is china's biggest single customer.

      Doing that would cause internal economic instability and the chinese have plenty of recent experience with such things coupled with a strong will to avoid repeats.

      War sells. Peace grows. The chinese have a vested interest in things NOT getting hot and they've never had overly ambitious world domination plans.

    74. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "China is VERY interested in stealing all the trade secrets they can get their hands on, and passing them to domestic Chinese firms who will be happy to offer competing products at much lower prices"

      There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that the USA engages in similar activities against "friend" and "unfriend" alike.

    75. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      FWIW: Whilst Huawei might be banned from selling to the US govt they're well represented in USA telcos. Several of them are virtually exclusively Huawei houses. (Level3's high capacity equipment as a f'instance)

      That's why Cisco is running scared - and if you think the stuff in the US House was about spying, then look to see where the campaign contributions for the representatives involved come from.

      Think less about spying and more about "trade barriers" and "protectionism" - both of which the USA has been particularly good at erecting in defiance of international treaties such as GATT.

    76. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by antdude · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone would be interest in my ant addiction. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    77. Re:It's not mutually exclusive. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      ah the good old internet, where every "anonymous coward" has at least 3 doctorates directly related to the topic discussed.

  2. "We have never been asked..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We just comply

  3. Suuuure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, i'm suuuuuure a company with ties to the Chinese government will provide us all with a safe haven from government spying.

  4. Spy Vs. Spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spy Vs. Spy only it's not funny and it's real.

  5. Bizarro world by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Imagine you had told someone 25 years ago that China offers you a safe haven from being spied on by the US and possible repercussions because of it...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Bizarro world by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      If you lived on a latin american country, that statement would simply make sense at any point in time.

    2. Re:Bizarro world by Threni · · Score: 1

      Exactly. When 9/11 happened I'm sure I wasn't the only one to peel back that day's window on my 365 day American Foreign Policy advent calendar to reveal another atrocity.

      Although the idea that you can trust Chinese companies to not reveal info to their government is simply laughable.

    3. Re:Bizarro world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine you had told someone 25 years ago that China offers you a safe haven from being spied on by the US and possible repercussions because of it...

      It would only be a genuine "safe haven" if both the Chinese government didn't spy (which it will) or the US government couldn't (which there is no real guarantee).

      I do find your views bizarre.

    4. Re:Bizarro world by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Although the idea that you can trust Chinese companies to not reveal info to their government is simply laughable.

      What info? What is it that they can 'reveal'?

      Are you aware of some backdoors in Huawei equipment which allow Huawei (or/and Chinese government) to remotely gain access to equipment + data? Otherwise, what is it that they can 'reveal'?

      Share, please. I'd like to know about those backdoors too.

    5. Re:Bizarro world by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I do not say that it's not that way. I only say that 25 years ago such an "offer" would be met only with ridicule and belittlement towards the Chinese company. As you might have noticed, it's not the case today anymore.

      And yes, I think it's a big problem that a company hailing from a country where privacy is virtually unheard of can advertise as being a better data haven than a company in the US, citing privacy concerns.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Bizarro world by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of some backdoors in Huawei equipment which allow Huawei (or/and Chinese government) to remotely gain access to equipment + data?

      I doubt he is. I also doubt he's aware of any specific backdoors in Cisco equipment either. However, we're not talking about a court here. If you think absence of proof is enough reason to trust something, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    7. Re:Bizarro world by russotto · · Score: 1

      I do not say that it's not that way. I only say that 25 years ago such an "offer" would be met only with ridicule and belittlement towards the Chinese company. As you might have noticed, it's not the case today anymore.

      It should be, though. The revelations of American spying haven't changed China one bit. And it's not like the NSA wouldn't be above finding out about backdoors put in by Chinese companies and using them itself.

    8. Re:Bizarro world by Threni · · Score: 1

      They sell routers, amongst other things. So the information they might be compelled to report would include passwords, sites visited, devices behind the router, and the packets themselves. They could also use the routers to disable the network or launch DDOS attacks. I should have thought all this were obvious, though.

  6. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by johanw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is. The Chinese government isn't very interested in meddling in the internal affairs of other nations as long as they can do buisiness with them. The US government tries to force their sponsors opinion about artificial scarcity (aka "intellectual property") on the whole planet, and would prosecute me when I download things the US companies would not want me to.

    As for respect for human rights, both governments are comparable bad. Both countries have high numbers of executions and torture prisoners one way or another. At least the Chinese don't try to invade countries throughout the world, they were content with Tibet.

  7. Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a Snowden brief a short while ago that showed that one of the major switch vendors had given NSA a direct backdoor into their products. One of the people covering that story said something like, "I can't tell you that it's Cisco, but it's Cisco". The real problem with this situation is that we really don't know which of these things is true.

    Back when the USG banned the use of Huawei products, most people assumed that it meant that there was spying functionality in it that had been discovered. However, in light of Bull Run, it's definitely worth asking if what might have happened is that they refused to install spying technology and the USG report was meant as a way to discredit the company and prevent its market penetration.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are very interesting artifacts in Huweii silicon. Even more interesting is what you find in Cisco knockoffs.

    2. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source: ?

    3. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Tom · · Score: 2

      Back when the USG banned the use of Huawei products, most people assumed that it meant that there was spying functionality in it that had been discovered.

      Uh, no? Over here in Europe, a lot of people assumed it meant the US vendors had had a nice chat with their government, complaining about the cheaper competition and promising campaign contributions.

      Not that we weren't afraid of chinese backdoors. I was in the telco industry back then and the discussions were fierce and not exactly short about whether or not to use their stuff. But the US banning them just as they were gaining market share like crazy? That was such an obvious protectionist move.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The 'owner' of Huawei is a top person within the communist party. He was a long time officer with their military. For CHINESE employees only, he gives them ownership. No others.
      And you think that it is NOT laden with backdoors? Really?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'owner' of Huawei is a top person within the communist party. He was a long time officer with their military. For CHINESE employees only, he gives them ownership. No others.

      And you think that it is NOT laden with backdoors? Really?

      "For CHINESE employees only, he gives them ownership. No others." You mean, just like how the Google IPO is restricted to US-only?

      And you think Google is not sending ALL of your data to the US Govt? Really?

    6. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the U.S.G. would approach a Chinese corporation and expect cooperation with the installation of a secret backdoor. That would asking Huawei to commit treason, and it would surely be reported.

      My hypothesis is that the U.S.G. realized that, since we are compromising products made in our country for our intelligence services, they are (most likely) doing the same.

    7. Re:Did Huawei Rebuff the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL; Google IPO was NOT restricted to US only. ANYBODY not from a nation that is blocked from our markets could get in on it. However, it WAS IPOed by a US company.
      Do I think that google is sending all of my data to the US gov? Nope. Gov, could not even process it.
      I helped work on the USA PATRIOT act. Unlike others that make WILD accusations, I do have a grasp of some of this.

  8. maybe Huawei was banned because by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    they did not include the US Govt approved NSA backdoor in their products

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:maybe Huawei was banned because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad to say but banning them because they refused to open a back door for the NSA, or because of a fear that Huawei would report the request to the Chinese government (and thus confirm that vendors were being compromised), is consistent with the way these agencies seem to operate. As part of the US DoD, the NSA is under the same command structure that "lost" paperwork recommending an award for bravery by a soldier in Afghanistan who had the temerity to question the decision by some of his superiors to deny his unit air cover during a pitched battle. Clearly these people are all about one thing: covering their own sorry asses.

    2. Re:maybe Huawei was banned because by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the firmware was so buggy the NSA got tired of having to patch it for every update release.

    3. Re:maybe Huawei was banned because by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps, but I still count on the saying: "A thief thinks every man steals".

      The US assumes there are backdoors in Chinese equipment because they themselves put backdoors in all American equipment.

    4. Re:maybe Huawei was banned because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There ARE backdoors in Huawei (Chinese) equipment.

      Anecdotal evidence: I did some work for a large telecom carrier in latinamerica that had some Huawei gear. They were getting remote support from China during the install/config phase of a particular project concerning core networking equipment. After that phase was over, the carrier's techs changed all the passwords and even deleted some admin accounts as remote access was no longer necessary/allowed....and, wouldn't you know it, the next morning there had been some config changes and even a minor patch installed in some of the equipment.

      So the problem the US has with Huawei equipment is that it's someone else who has the key to the backdoor. I wholeheartedly agree with the US goverment in this instance. Don't allow Huawei into your house. Now, the position of the US citizens is a different story...

  9. Doubtful Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm an I.T. manager for a non-western company that has non-western defense contracts, one of those sort of conglomerates that does every activity under the sun. I doubt their ploy will actually work, we don't trust the US or the Chinese. It's a matter of "pick your poison". Still, anyone foolish enough to buy Huawei (Their firmware universally sucks, from modems to enterprise/service-level network and backhaul equipment) might be foolish enough to believe they're safer. In reality though, you're more at risk from the security exploits from Huawei's lazy half-assed programmers. I fear their coders more than any possible shadowy relationships.

    1. Re:Doubtful Tactic by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I'm an I.T. manager for a non-western company that has non-western defense contracts, one of those sort of conglomerates that does every activity under the sun. I doubt their ploy will actually work, we don't trust the US or the Chinese. It's a matter of "pick your poison". Still, anyone foolish enough to buy Huawei (Their firmware universally sucks, from modems to enterprise/service-level network and backhaul equipment) might be foolish enough to believe they're safer. In reality though, you're more at risk from the security exploits from Huawei's lazy half-assed programmers. I fear their coders more than any possible shadowy relationships.

      And yet, there are hundreds of massive networks having Huawei equipment in core network. Imagine that, their networks actually still run very well, but of course their "firmware" sucks line is certainly very convincing.

      You probably haven't even seen a Huawei enterprise switch.

    2. Re:Doubtful Tactic by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Interesting

      we don't trust the US or the Chinese

      Don't blame you. As an American, I also don't trust either.

      you're more at risk from the security exploits from Huawei's lazy half-assed programmers

      At least when you find a backdoor in Cisco products, you know it was meant to be a backdoor.

      As an American I'd like to believe the Huawei programmers are incompetent. OTOH it would be very clever to disguise a backdoor as a bug, or turn a bug into a backdoor. Hold it, Microsoft/NSA has already used the latter approach. Damn Chinese just copy our ideas.

    3. Re:Doubtful Tactic by EmperorArthur · · Score: 2

      DEFCON 20: Hacking Redacted Routers

      Huawei has so many bugs that I don't buy anything other than incompetence.
      I've linked to the conclusion of that video so you can see a nice list of how bad they are.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    4. Re:Doubtful Tactic by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      When japan first made cars the quality was terrible. It is to be expected that early Chinese IT will have poor quality.

    5. Re:Doubtful Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they work doesn't mean they work well or there is better. I've worked on Avaya phone switches that were superior to the Redcom ones, but programming the Avaya was an absolute nightmare and not worth it in the end.

    6. Re:Doubtful Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL! Honestly, you didn't just compare Japan's technological evolution to China's did you? I haven't laughed that hard in a long time...

  10. drivers by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear Huawei chairman,

    open source all of your drivers and firmware, then we'll be forced to agree that your equipment is safe for use.

    1. Re:drivers by richlv · · Score: 1

      exactly :)
      while it would not provide full confidence (nothing ever can, reflections on trusting trust), fully opensourcing all code that runs on their hardware would be the only way to inspire trusting them. current initiative is kinda aimed at some governments (and maybe large companies), but the barrier to entry is insanely high (individual researchers or any random person can't participate)

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:drivers by Flytrap · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear gbjbaanb,

      We will gladly do so... as soon as you also ask the following competitors to do the same:
      - Juniper Networks
      - Cisco
      - 3Com
      - Teledata Networks
      - Netgear
      - Alcatel-Lucent
      - :

      After all, the back doors we have in our switches are the same back doors we inherited from their code when we stole it a few years ago.

    3. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stole, or was it given to them when all those companies decided it would be cheaper to manufacture in China?

    4. Re:drivers by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Dear Huawei chairman,

      open source all of your drivers and firmware, then we'll be forced to agree that your equipment is safe for use.

      I guess you don't use Cisco equipment either.

      What do you use, actually?

      (let me guess - you run m0n0wall on Soekris, right?)

    5. Re:drivers by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      After all, the back doors we have in our switches are the same back doors we inherited from their code when we stole it a few years ago.

      At least American technology is still ahead.

    6. Re:drivers by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.

      First, having the source code doesn't tell you the binary running on the device was actually built from the source code you have in your hands.

      Second, even if you validate the build chain, you don't know what the compiler, linker and other parts of the toolchain have inserted. This is really, really old knowledge, we're talking at least 30 years.

      Third, even if you are sure about the software, you still don't know if there's trickery in the hardware.

      You're certainly better off if you have the source code, but don't ever think that alone solves anything.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why you think that all backdoors have to be in software. Even if they gave you source for some firmware used in their products, who is to say there isn't a backdoor in some custom hardware or a small, hidden processor running from ROM. Are you going to xray the chips they use and try to work out what they might not have told you about? Your comment seems naive at best.

    8. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they build a backdoor into the die?

    9. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soekris firmware is not open source.

    10. Re: drivers by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      Please consider opportunity costs. I doubt that it would be affordable to actually use those backdoors on joe average. The US approach was different:

      - make encryption weak by forcing US based companies to weaken the enryption so that the sent data could be considered to be transparent

      - store and analyse the information sent and received from customers of every american company on a regular basis so that those analyses tell them more about these people than they know about themselves

      I tend to trust opportunity costs to make it possible for me to keep more information secret when huawei open sources its drivers and software even if a backdoor is installed on the hardware level than currently.

      Slowly moving away from any US closed source products in my opinion increases my privacy even if I assume that huawei built in a backdoor on the hardware level.

    11. Re:drivers by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Dear Huawei chairman, Open source all your drivers and firmware, And we'll fix it. ftfy.

    12. Re:drivers by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In fact, if I recall a story a few years back correctly, the main concern was not about the firmware but about backdoors built into the silicon. Even if they turned over their HDL files (something no hardware vendor would do), the same problem exists there that it does for software: short of uncapping the chips and examining them in impossible detail, there's no way to know that there wasn't a backdoor inserted into the chip design later in the synthesis (compilation) or manufacturing process anyhow.

      I'd mod you up but I already commented on this thread, so hopefully others will do it for me.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    13. Re:drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had the misfortune of working with some of Huawei's source code. Besides being the worst hacked up mess I have ever seen it was full of GPLed code (they didn't even remove the headers, just renamed all the functions and variables). Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

  11. Maybe? there is no maybe, at least inside China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huawei is already getting a lot more business inside China itself. Mostly, they're getting ex-Cisco customers, but Juniper is worried as well.

  12. Spins everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upfront, i do trust neither. But the articles text i think is so... typical.

    - forthcoming enough to convince committee members to disregard charges it had given Chinese intelligence services

    Well... for that, concrete charges would be necessary. Otheriwse its like proving that something we dont really know doesnt exist. Show a malfunction, it can be fixed. If a user says SOMETHING doesnt work, and he cant tell us what, we cant help him. And if you dont have that, what made you think of it in the first place?

    Request to committee: be forthcoming to convince us to diregard charges that US networking companies have given US intelligence services access to traffic

    - playing off the Snowden scandal

    Its not a Snowden scandal. Its an NSA / GCHQ scandal.

    1. Re: Spins everywhere by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. It's not a Snowden scandal, it's a NSA/GCHQ scandal!

  13. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Zemran · · Score: 1

    Telling the truth about the US is seen as trolling by the plebs :) you should know that in order to keep good kharma you have to wave the flag and advocate Linux :)

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  14. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

    Dunno why this was labelled troll. If I had mod points I would mod up rather than down. I guess the mods are just not feeling terribly objective today.

  15. Of course by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can Huawei actually gain more customers by playing off the Snowden scandal?"

    Of course they can. In fact, I suspect they already have.

    One of the Cisco et al. selling points was "you can trust us with your data, can you trust Huawei ?" Now that is gone. Loosing a selling point like that, in a competitive market, means that sales will go to the companies it was directed against.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is the NSA really using backdoors in the hardware or are they collecting the data upstream so doesn't really matter what hardware you are using?

    2. Re:Of course by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I think that you can trust Cisco with your data, at least in the US. Why build backdoors into the equipment when service providers give the NSA open access anyway. It'd be like getting lock picks when they'll just open the door for you.

    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is the NSA really using backdoors in the hardware or are they collecting the data upstream so doesn't really matter what hardware you are using?

      It matters if your upstream is not located in the US, i.e., most of the rest of the world.

  16. Tit for tat from China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM's hardware revenue from China collapsed 40% in the 3rd quarter.

  17. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by j35ter · · Score: 1

    Why does this comment get modded as a troll?

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  18. Give up on that company No Huawei! by skepticle · · Score: 1

    Lol. Selling my Huawei U8100 smartphone (Wind Mobile). No really. Anybody want it? It's in good shape! $30 in the GTA. I know you all love Android 2.1 and 3G data speeds. Heck, I've actually managed a positive score playing Counter-Strike 1.6 from my PC over 3G service, wireless tether, and server pings of 110ms! It's a beast! It's more powerful than a Pentium 2! Runs 16 bit emulators passably well! Maybe it spies on you, who the heck cares? We all know you only use it as a toy or a 2.1 test bed anyways. Let Chinese intelligence watch in awe as you play the Final Fantasy 1&2 remake for the Gameboy Advance! On turbo speed! Huzzah! Take that, Garland!

  19. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    At least the Chinese don't try to invade countries throughout the world, they were content with Tibet.

    Give 'em time. Wars are expensive, so they've been developing their economy. They've been pretty belligerent about various islands, big and small.

  20. I trust China more than the USA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "terrorist watchlist" is awful comfy, thanks NSA.
    But seriously, by typing that I likely have been put on some watchlist now because obviously anyone that supports China is a spy, terrorist, murder or dictator-in-the-making. Banned from USA, on instant-arrest watchlist at every airport, etc.
    You used to be cool USA. I actually used to respect NSA. Not now. There is doing things "illegally" within reason, then there is just straight-up abusive levels of illegality that they are presently doing.

    Now that China are finally growing up, I actually respect them far more.
    If only they got that whole censorship nonsense away. Isolationism is never a good thing.
    China would benefit hugely by opening up more since they are a huge influence in many markets.

    USA still seems to be stuck in the 60-70s at the government level.
    Not that that is any better than the UK, they are still stuck in the dark ages, and they just discovered a time travellers computers.
    God damn the IT in government is embarrassing for the most part. The sad thing is my friend couldn't get a job for years when he specifically could have fixed the stupid crap they had been doing with networking, AND they were "punishing" him for not finding a job through that terrible DWP system (which I suffer from as well due to illness, obviously everyone that is ill and isn't drooling from the mouth and have FIVE legs missing is a total lying junky that just wants free money)
    Now he has a great job in a company that manages many varied clients and I've even done a bit of work for them here and there now.

    1. Re:I trust China more than the USA. by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Banned from USA, on instant-arrest watchlist at every airport, etc. You used to be cool USA. I actually used to respect NSA. Not now. There is doing things "illegally" within reason, then there is just straight-up abusive levels of illegality that they are presently doing. Now that China are finally growing up, I actually respect them far more.

      Why? Because at least they never claimed to be the land of the free? However bad the US is, China is worse (or if not, they're working on the tech). It's just that I hold my own country to a higher standard.

      People think China is potentially some bastion of openness because it's better than when Mao ran the show. That's a pretty low bar. And heck, the Tiananmen square massacre was 24 years ago. They've changed so much - might as well be talking about the Qin dynasty, right?

      If only they got that whole censorship nonsense away.

      If only the Chinese government wasn't the Chinese government.

      China would benefit hugely by opening up more since they are a huge influence in many markets.

      The same is true of the US, and we've actually had experience doing that. It's just that things have been retrograde for the last decade or so.

    2. Re:I trust China more than the USA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is delusion that westerners get, when they can't read Chinese. They tend to give China the benefit of the doubt which they would refuse any other country, because all they know is western malfeasance. Good luck embracing another schoolyard bully, idiot.

    3. Re:I trust China more than the USA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn, that shit again, the entire world is already sick of that tune.

      You know what you and your fellow Americans' problem is? You guys talk too much bullshit.

  21. Bias and negative wording by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 2

    You shouldn't be asking "Can Huawei actually gain more customers by playing off the Snowden scandal?", but rather if American vendors can keep their customers in light of the NSA scandal.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  22. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    wow. Just wow.
    You HAVE to live in either America or Europe. You obviously have no knowledge about Asia.
    Why do you think that vietnam is cuddlying up with USA these days? Why do you think that EVERY ASIAN NATION except China, North Korea, and sometimes Russia wants USA in on meetings for those areas?
    What do they know that an ignorant person like you does not know?

    Perhaps they know that China has invaded ALL of asia over and over. Perhaps they know that China threatens just about all of them NOW, and says that they want control of areas that was not theirs in a minimum of 100 years and in some cases, over a 1000.
    Perhaps they are watching China put DIVERSIONARY dams on the headwaters that go to south east asia, as well as lower asia (i.e. India).
    Perhaps it is the economic warfare that is being conducted while they manipulate their money against the other nations.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  23. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    oh, one last thing. If the Chinese gov is so wonderful for downloads, then you should go ahead and copy Chinese made movies to DVD and try selling them in China. I am sure that you will have a BLAST with your last vision.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  24. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    telling the truth about USA? Give me a break. I wish that I had NOT posted on this and instead had used my mod points on this story. I would have modded him down further. He is a PURE troll.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  25. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by X.25 · · Score: 0

    wow. Just wow.
    You HAVE to live in either America or Europe. You obviously have no knowledge about Asia.
    Why do you think that vietnam is cuddlying up with USA these days? Why do you think that EVERY ASIAN NATION except China, North Korea, and sometimes Russia wants USA in on meetings for those areas?
    What do they know that an ignorant person like you does not know?

    Interesting.

    I've lived in Asia for 15 years, I'd really like to read more of your fiction stories.

    Because, in all honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Am I living in the right Asia? Or do I need to live in one located inside your imagination?

  26. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Because, in all honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

    HTH HAND

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do and a good opportunity for them.

  28. False accusations? by Fuzi719 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the reason for all the congressional/government banning of Huawei equipment was really not because there was any proof of Chinese government spying, but because there was no way for the NSA to get THEIR backdoors into Huawei equipment. The NSA could not allow US government and telecommunications companies to begin using equipment they could not hack.

    1. Re:False accusations? by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      Because asking Huawei to build these hooks into their equipment would have tipped the Chinese off about the NSA's capabilities. And they would have an idea where and how all the backdoors in other vendors' systems (in use in the USA) were implemented and how to utilize them.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  29. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by johanw · · Score: 1

    Troll? If you are offended by the fact that the population of other western countries starts to see the US as enemy rather than ally, then you whould thank the actions of your government for that. We thank your grandparents for kicking the Germans out in WW2 and your parents for keeping the Russians out during the cold war but that doesn't mean you can do anything you like.

  30. There is no point in asking Huawei for backdoors by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    There is little to no effective difference between an intentional backdoor and a backdoor created by incompetence and shoddy workmanship. Huawei has code quality problems it still needs to work thru.

    I have no doubt as the company matures it is and will do much better.

  31. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a sizeable fraction of the Slashdot audience is American and many of them are not very objective when it comes to their country.

  32. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a sizeable fraction of the Slashdot audience is American and many of them are not very objective when it comes to their country.

    Ummm... Objective, is that something edible?

  33. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by johanw · · Score: 1

    I download them for personal (and family) use, I don't sell them. Certainly not in China, where I don't live. That's OK with the Chineze, they don't care, and although it is even legal where I live the (The Netherlands) US is still pushing my country to change those laws. I downloaded even some Chineze films (although they were spoken in English, my Chineze is not that good).

  34. Water Gap by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    I guess Huawei will start marketing the advantage of their "Water Gap".

    "Our jack-booted thugs are water-gaped from your USA facility, while the same cannot be said of our competitors."

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Water Gap by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Now just hold still as my associates pour this lovely drink down your throat why yes it is almond flavored brandy.

  35. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    Why do you think that vietnam is cuddlying up with USA these days? Why do you think that EVERY ASIAN NATION except China, North Korea, and sometimes Russia wants USA in on meetings for those areas?
    What do they know that an ignorant person like you does not know?

    Hmmm... "If we don't play nice with the USA, if we don't let them station troops in our country, they will label us an axis of evil and try to invade us."

    Perhaps they know that China has invaded ALL of asia over and over.

    Hahahahaha.... I'm sure the Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Malaysia etc. can tell you all about the Chinese invasion that never happened. I'll tell you something you don't know. China did invade Japan a few times. The last time it happened, China was controlled by the Mongols who were Genghis Khan's direct descendants. Unless "ALL of Asia" means "Tibet, India, and Vietnam". In that case I'm not living in Asia. I must be living in Europe or something.

    And FWIW, the country that could have a legitimate claim to having invaded ALL of Asia in recent history, is Japan. They were the Nazi equivalent in Asia in WWII. Yet despite having a history of invading almost every country that borders the Pacific Ocean, they're a "nice" country because they became USA's lapdog after their military was neutered in WWII. Truth never really matters with the US propaganda machine.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  36. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Zemran · · Score: 1

    Where are you from that had the US kick out the Germans? I am European so I remember that the British and the Russians did far more and that the Americans turned up late as usual with the beer and pizza. If you had actually spoken to people who fought you would have heard them tell you the the yanks were a liability as they were green. They ran from the fight and did not defend their allies. The main thing that they were good at was taking credit for what everyone else had done. They were a minority at Normandy but they took the majority of the credit as usual.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  37. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's probably alluding to China's 3 or so invasions of sovereign nations in the past 113 years, and everything going back to 3000 years ago when some Chinese guy moved his garden border 10 metres in to Mongolian land because the neighbour refused to take steps that'd prevent his tree from leaving leaves in the Chinese guy's pool.

    What's shocking is the hundreds of years of tranquility Asia would have enjoyed if not for China.

  38. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    OK, let's look at the list of Chinese invasions in the past century.

    1910 invasion of Tibet by China
    1950 - 1951 invasion of Tibet by China

    Tibet

    1962 invasion of India by China

    Border conflict with India

    1974 invasion of Paracel Islands by China

    Skirmish with Vietnam.

    1979 invasion of Northern Vietnam by China

    Vietnam

    1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China

    Skirmish with Vietnam

    So, Tibet, India and Vietnam. The latter two are mostly border conflicts. The 1979 war with Vietnam resulted in China withdrawing voluntarily. Let's look again at the OP's "trollish" statement:

    At least the Chinese don't try to invade countries throughout the world, they were content with Tibet

    And the comment saying China has invaded "ALL of asia" is now ranked +4 Interesting? Let's look at what invading "ALL of asia" is like:

    1944 invasion of East Asia by Japan
    1943 invasion of Gilberts & Marshall Islands by Japan
    1943 invasion of Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands by Japan
    1942 invasion of Alaska by Japan
    1942 invasion of Indonesia by Japan
    1942 invasion of New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea and Singapore by Japan
    1942 invasion of Solomon Islands by Japan
    1941 invasion of Netherlands East Indies, Guam and Borneo by Japan
    1941 invasion of Wake Island, Hong Kong and Philippines by Japan
    1941 invasion of Malaya and Thailand by Japan
    1941 invasion of Southern French Indochina by Japan
    1941 invasion of Southern Vietnam by Japan
    1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Spratly Islands by Japan
    1939 invasion of French and Vietnamese-held Paracel Islands by Japan
    1938 invasion of the Soviet Union by Japan
    1937 invasion of China by Japan
    1931 invasion of Chinese Manchuria by Japan
    1914 invasion of Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands by Japan
    1914 invasion of German Tsingtao in China by Japan and the United Kingdom
    1914 invasion of German Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands and Marshall Islands by Japan
    1910 invasion of Korea by Japan
    1904 invasion of Russia by Japan

    I'm not sure which alternative universes you guys are living in.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  39. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Clsid · · Score: 1

    I would really like to know which state of the US you are from since you have reached a level of stupidity I haven't seen in a while.

  40. We have a new by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Definition of Chutzpah

  41. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan. They were the Nazi equivalent in Asia in WWII. Yet despite having a history of invading almost every country that borders the Pacific Ocean, they're a "nice" country because they became USA's lapdog after their military was neutered in WWII.

    Not like the friendly Chinese government who were the Asian equivalent of Stalinist Russia. The US went there in WW2 , neutered Japan and fenced out China. All-in-all, a positive for the region for 40, 50, 60 maybe even 70 years. China is breaking down the fence and Japan has gotten self-discipline in the modern world. Maybe the USA will be good for the region another 20 years, maybe it will nuke it all. No one knows. But they wont he war and could have nuked everyone over there if they wanted to. They didn't. Cut them some slack. Trust *(but verify).

    To be clear, when Americans bash the Chinese, we are bashing the Chinese who run the top positions in government. We love your food and kung fu movies and numerous other things that aren't as sound-bitable.

  42. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by poity · · Score: 1

    The good behavior of Chinese government, as perceived by European Slashdotters for instance, is more a reflection of the current limits of China's geopolitical reach. If you were to ask people in Southeast Asia which country meddles more in their nation's affairs, China may very well edge out the USA. This is reflected by the enthusiasm in welcoming the US into ASEAN dialogue by China's neighbors. In fact, I'm quite sure if the question were posed to Filipinos, Singaporeans, Burmese, etc, you would find an answer that is just the opposite of johanw's.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  43. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by poity · · Score: 1

    The American Slashdotters actually seem to me more objective than their European counterparts. If you would look at the history of political discussion on this site, self-criticism is far far more likely to come from an American than from a European. You will also find that whataboutism is heavily relied upon in comments to articles about non-US countries, especially concerning Europe, whereas for stories about the US that sort of excuse-making is hardly ever seen. It leaves the sense that Americans actually care, whereas Europeans are more fond of judging and deflecting.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  44. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to search that page for Han, Sui, Ming, Qin, and any other dynasty from before 1911

  45. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    OTOH, the US paid no attention to the Geneva convention. The Vietnam War need never have happened. That would probably have prevented the Pot Pol horror. (I know, it's a different country. but violence tends to spread.)

    Still, it's true. You need to be more afraid of your neighbors than of someone who lives a hundred miles away. And it's been awhile since the US has invaded either Mexico or Canada. But I'm sure they both remember it unhappily, even though in the US it's mainly forgotten.

    Unfortunately, there are many indications that the current social unrest in the US is going to be getting worse for awhile. This may remain internal, but governments tend to try to divert internal unrest by fomenting external conflicts. I don't know where China stands on this. Are the powerful elites getting more powerful? Is the middle class rising or shrinking? FWIW, I expect the first really clear warning sign to be a series of coupes. The leading edge is the concentration of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands. But remember, too, that the Roman Empire lasted for quite awhile with new Emperors being killed off within a few years. So don't expect rapid collapse, just that things will be getting less and less plesant as things get weaker and weaker, until finally the pieces at the edge start leaving. (Unless someone gets impatient and starts a war. Given the insanity at the top that tends to pervade during such periods that could lead to a sterilized planet.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  46. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get these fucktards, of all the things they can smear China with they pick the one thing the US has been doing for centuries.

    Either they're brain damaged or they are one of those alphabet soup agency employee earning a paycheck while playing dumb.

  47. Maybe the government banned them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the US banned their products because it's one of the few tech companies they couldn't get backdoors into. It works against the US interest to have hardware that they can't access out in the wild.

  48. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    First off, I do not agree with my nation pushing the BS copyright laws. We, and others, are making a total mess of things.
    Secondly, the Chinese gov. will try you and then shoot you for selling Chinese copyrighted items in China. What they do not care about is when OTHER's copyrighted material is sold. Just like they allow bath salts and other illegal drugs to be exported from China, they will execute you (i.e. shoot you), if you are caught selling it there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  49. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Here is a clue Jonaw. When we told Germany and Sweden about multiple terrorists threats, how do you think that we got it? ALL of the European govs. know. Every last one knows. They also know that they did not have the capability to do this (or want to devote the money to it either).

    Now, you may not like hearing this, but your gov, as well as the rest, spy on each others. The FVEY (5 eye) esp. spy on each other. We know it. Why do we allow it? Because the group that does for each of the nations, are APOLITICAL. NSA is VERY apolitical. Now, if I were to find out that the FBI, ran by the DOJ, was doing this, I would be terrified. And I would say, that you should be too.

    However, I know that each of the agencies involved are normally above this BS. Of course, the recent BS is shocking not because of the spying outside of the nation, but the abuse by individuals.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  50. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The total number of troops landed on D-Day was around 130,000[19]-156,000[20] roughly half American and the other from the Commonwealth Realms.


    We came in late, but provided large support prior to our being brought in (including sending massive supplies to you and guarding them ourselves; we also sent in large amount of private fighters).
    But, your statement reminds me of a saying: 'Once a liar, always a liar'.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  51. Just Parse the Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'We have never been asked to provide access to our technology, " --just means that access happened without them being asked, of course! Duh, that should be obvious when the relevant Government is Authoritarian rather then democratic.

  52. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by Zemran · · Score: 1

    'Once a liar, always a liar'.

    Lovely quote for someone defending the idea of US help. The US sold supplies to both sides until Germany declared war on the US and even after that the US continued to supply Germany through 3rd parties. Britain on the other hand did not charge for the help that it gave to its allies. The US, as always, saw the war as a way to get rich. That is very different from the picture painted by people like GW who spoke about the US (he said 'America' but Canada did offer genuine help) saving Europe. Without the US, the Germans had still lost. The US servicemen did do a lot and to them we are grateful but the politicians who steal credit for things that they do not deserve are scum.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  53. open source by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    just open source firmware and software

    --
    Go well
  54. Re:Prepare for Slashdotters... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Like I said, once a liar, always a liar.

    The fact is, that the US gov. allowed mail(in fact, continued to push it through most of the war), but stopped all other supplies once UK declared the blockaide. Now, there were a NUMBER of Americans of German, Italian, and even French descent, that supported Hitler. However, Our gov. did NOT.

    and I note the fact that German, Italian, AND UK businesses were busy trading with Sadaam and that the evidence came forward once we invaded him (yeah, yeah, we had no business doing that, but, by the same token, it was obvious afterwards that european business had kept him very comfortable).

    And as to W, yeah, the guy was a colossal idiot. I did not vote for him. I considered him along the lines of Nixon, reagan, vitter, Craig, Delay, etc. and other criminals. Heck, the idiot had a supposed history degree and did not have a grasp of WWII, let alone simple American history.
    BUT just because W was an idiot (and I wish that other western nations would pick him up and try him), it does not mean that you are even close to the truth in either of your 2 postings.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.