Slashdot Mirror
Huawei Is Blocked in US, But Its Chips Power Cameras Everywhere (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Pelco, a California-based security camera maker, set lofty sales targets last year for a model with sharper video resolution and other cutting-edge features. That was until Congress derailed its plans. In August, updated legislation barred the U.S. military and government from buying tech gear from firms deemed too close to authorities in China. When the bill surfaced, Pelco scrapped any thought of providing its new GPC Professional 4K camera to the U.S. government and lowered its sales goals. The reason: The device uses parts from HiSilicon, the chip division of Huawei.
[...] Most of the focus is on Huawei telecom gear that helps run communications networks all over the world. But chips from the HiSilicon unit are also sparking concern because they power about 60 percent of surveillance cameras. That means Chinese chips process video from cameras that sit in places as varied as pizzerias, offices and banks across the U.S.
[...] Most of the focus is on Huawei telecom gear that helps run communications networks all over the world. But chips from the HiSilicon unit are also sparking concern because they power about 60 percent of surveillance cameras. That means Chinese chips process video from cameras that sit in places as varied as pizzerias, offices and banks across the U.S.
Or rather it is, but only as a commercial competitor. Those that cannot compete in fair market will often try anything. Kind of funny to see this happening in the US where the "free market" is a huge fetish. The whole "spying" thing is a big fat smokescreen.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
True, a camera chip is hard to compromise, but the threat is still very real. Because in China, by law (or really decree of Dictator Xi) every large company must have a Party member on board, and every company must obey the will of the Government. There are terrible consequences for not obeying. And speaking out is a sure way to get "disappeared".
For something like a camera, OK, maybe not so much. But for something like a network switch or core router or switchgear, things get a lot more interesting, because it will have access to sensitive traffic, and there's the rub. Huawei cannot come clean about any spyware it installed on behalf of the government or even if there is spyware, because it's illegal for them to do so. So even if you ask them they will always say "no".
Things are somewhat different in the US - the government can make demands but it can also be challenged on those demands. (This is the primary difference between "Rule of Law" - where the law is supreme, and "Rule by Law" where someone can easily mold the law as they see fit (like what China does)).
Doesn't mean there isn't a lot of shady stuff going on, but at least in the West, that stuff generally gets exposed. The Chinese Snowden was probably killed stepping out of their building. Fact is, the west has independent judicial systems, independent government, independent press, etc. While in China, it's all state controlled - from the courts to the press.
I bought a web security cam for $15 on sale over the holidays. I can't figure out how they can retail for so cheap. It has a HiSilicon "camera" SoC. From what I saw with a quick web search, this SoC does everything in the device. Basic image capture stuff, handles whatever API the vendor app to connect to it needs, full recording to the SD card, etc. Apparently if I felt like jerry-rigging a cable, I could telnet (or SSH?) and get a (busybox?) shell. I'm sure there's enough processing in it to handle all kinds of stuff..
For core network devices the restriction on Huawei makes sense as there is the side band maintenance network that core network infrastructure has. It's not so much them reading the data passing through the network as it is the ability for them to bring the network down.
That said you would be crazy to think the US doesn't have exactly the same capabilities in the Cisco and other US brand equipment that is installed around the world.
Before I retired a few years ago I wrote drivers for cameras that went into cellphones. These things were hideously complex, and a minor tweak to some obscure "sets the delta alpha gamma anion setting" could have dramatic effects on the picture quality.
None of the 100+ registers had anything to do with networking. They weren't even directly connected to anything outside the 8-16 bit interface used to talk to them. I can't think of any way these sensors could be used for spying, unless they had a hidden, built in wireless link built in. Which I strongly doubt, as the prices between cameras was pennies per unit.
That said, if a single chip had a camera and network interface (which I never ran across) then there could be issues.