Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's Latest Effort To Thwart the Growth of China's Huawei is Playing Out Beneath the World's Oceans (wsj.com)

Posted by msmash on from the under-the-surface dept.

A new front has opened in the battle between the U.S. and China over control of global networks that deliver the internet. This one is beneath the ocean. [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; syndicated source.] From a report: While the U.S. wages a high-profile campaign to exclude China's Huawei from next-generation mobile networks over fears of espionage, the company is embedding itself into undersea cable networks that ferry nearly all of the world's internet data. About 380 active submarine cables -- bundles of fiber-optic lines that travel oceans on the seabed -- carry about 95% of intercontinental voice and data traffic, making them critical for the economies and national security of most countries. Current and former security officials in the U.S. and allied governments now worry that these cables are increasingly vulnerable to espionage or attack and say the involvement of Huawei potentially enhances China's capabilities.

Huawei denies any threat. The U.S. hasn't publicly provided evidence of its claims that Huawei technology poses a cybersecurity risk. Its efforts to persuade other countries to sideline the company's communication technology have been met with skepticism by some. Huawei Marine Networks, majority owned by the Chinese telecom giant, completed a 3,750-mile cable between Brazil and Cameroon in September. It recently started work on a 7,500-mile cable connecting Europe, Asia and Africa and is finishing up links across the Gulf of California in Mexico. Altogether, the company has worked on some 90 projects to build or upgrade seabed fiber-optic links, gaining fast on the three U.S., European and Japanese firms that dominate the industry. These officials say the company's knowledge of and access to undersea cables could allow China to attach devices that divert or monitor data traffic -- or, in a conflict, to sever links to entire nations.

44 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Pot or Kettle by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So? Is Huawei a black pot or a black kettle?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Pot or Kettle by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      In the original tale the kettle is shiny and the pot is seeing its own refection, so there's a big difference of whether you're the pot or kettle.

      --
      horror vacui
    2. Re:Pot or Kettle by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Hey, messing with undersea cables is exclusively a US domain. Even then potential threat of China getting in on it has to be stomped on hard, only the US is allowed do that.

  2. US and Russia have done it, so I guess we know by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This seems like how we knew that Saddam used to have WMDs, we sold them to him, and we kept the receipts. Of course, since we knew how old they were, we also knew he didn't have them any more.

    The only nations we know have actually tampered with undersea cables are the US and Russia, so I guess we know conclusively that China could do it because we've done it.

    With that said, yes, it's a credible threat. And yes, Huawei probably could bring something to the table in that regard. But so what? That only means that China has come along to a party which was already swingin'.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:US and Russia have done it, so I guess we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Saddam did have chemical weapons. WMD's. Yes, he did. He did not have a nuclear program advanced as advertised by Dick Cheney's cassus belli, and his biological program had been buried.

      Mentioning it constantly doesn't make the allegations against Huawei, a directly-owned and fraudulently controlled tentacle of the Chinese Communist Party, any less guilty or any less of a threat to western interests.

      I don't see why you're so keen to make apologies or excuses.

    2. Re:US and Russia have done it, so I guess we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He already said that Saddam had them. At one point. And we know this BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RECEIPTS. Learn to fucking read. Claims that Huwaie is directly owned by the chinese communist party and claims they are fraudulently so are meaningless US propaganda claims based on screaming hatred, bigoted ideology and a terror at losing a huge wodge of cash in the free market if the freedoms of the market are not curbed to protect the USA.

    3. Re:US and Russia have done it, so I guess we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Mentioning it constantly doesn't make the allegations against Huawei, a directly-owned and fraudulently controlled tentacle of the Chinese Communist Party, any less guilty or any less of a threat to western interests.

      Likewise, repeating this claim without evidence doesn't make it any more true.

      Absent evidence, I fail to see why any country should believe these claims.

      It's a great line for Trump to keep repeating to his un-critical base who apparently haven't caught on that everything he says is a lie ... for everyone else, you need to provide proof.

      So far, that hasn't happened.

    4. Re:US and Russia have done it, so I guess we know by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Put your neocon propaganda crackpipe down.

  3. Map of the undersea cables [NYT] by retroworks · · Score: 2

    NYTimes had a pretty interesting technology article about the undersea "cloud" three days ago. https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

    --
    Gently reply
  4. But muh freedoms! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about slashdot stop supporting "may be" paywalled sites, and find sources that are open and also likely to be around for a good bit?

  5. Exactly the stuff that America has been doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and now accusing China of trying? doing? It doesnt' matter, there's no evidence as usual, just accusations and FUD. Every day I see these bullshit accusations by the flippant and panicking USA, I trust that whole country, their government, their services, their products, less and less.

    If they were to spend less time attacking and accusing the whole world for stupid shit they're doing themselves, maybe people would start listening to them again.

  6. It depends on your viewpoint... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...Current and former security officials in the U.S. and allied governments now worry that these cables are increasingly vulnerable to espionage or attack ..." ...by OTHER people.

    I know US submariners that have talked vaguely about high tech cable-tapping missions since the 1990s.

    So it's not so much a "OMG they're vulnerable" as "crap those guys can perhaps do it now too" thing.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      Read Blind Man's Bluff. The US Navy has been tapping cables for much longer than that. I think the fear isn't so much about the cables being tapped once installed though. The Chinese Navy would do that on their own. I think the fear is more that Huawei as a supplier for systems related to these cables may be building in a way for Chinese authorities to snoop on traffic. Huawei almost certainly doesn't have in their possession a submarine with cable tapping equipment. Tapping into fiber optics is a bad idea anyways, it doesn't work like copper.

    2. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know US submariners that have talked vaguely about high tech cable-tapping missions since the 1990s.

      1990s LOL. The U.S. built a nuclear powered deep-water submarine in the 1960s specifically to tap underwater communications cables. It was used publicly to recover parts from airliner crashes and shipwrecks from the ocean floor. But it's obvious from its capabilities (multi-week loiter capability with manipulator arms) that it was made for tapping undersea cables. The fact that they built the ultimate underwater cable tapping machine in the 1960s tells you they were playing around with tapping the cables for at least decades prior. The fact that they retired it in 2008 should make you think about what shiny new toys they have now for doing the same thing.

      So it's not so much a "OMG they're vulnerable" as "crap those guys can perhaps do it now too" thing.,

      That's exactly it. The U.S. has been doing this for decades, so it's actually in the best position to know what the vulnerabilities and technical challenges are. And despite the general anti-U.S. sentiment among western countries, their interests align much more closely with the U.S.' interests than with China's. So if the U.S. is going so far as to warn its allies about the threat, it's a pretty good bet that there's really something to this.

    3. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want my country to have a monopoly on something like nuclear weapons, because it would inevitably lead to them becoming a global bully. I wouldn't want any country to be in a position where they could do that. The US wanted to be in that position after WW2, refusing to share technology with their ally the UK. Fortunately the UK and USSR developed their own nuclear weapons, providing some balance of power.

    4. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      And despite the general anti-U.S. sentiment among western countries, their interests align much more closely with the U.S.' interests than with China's.

      Seems that the US is more aligned with China then its allies lately, not to mention alignment with other brutal dictators such as the Saudi's and you have a President who seems friendlier with the leader of N. Korea then leaders of its allies.
      Personally I'm sick of my country supporting a country that slaps tariffs on my country for national security reasons while buying product from China by giving them lots of exceptions to tariffs.
      Seems like you're doing economic war mostly against your allies and once Huawei donates/lends some money to your president, this is likely to go away.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Is a Land Rover an incredibly powerful weapon that massively shifts the balance of power in a conflict? No.

    6. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      The UK "developed their own nuclear weapons"...eh, sort of. The Quebec Agreement had enshrined close US/UK cooperation on atomic weapons throughout the war and just after, when the US essentially unilaterally said "ok we're done" 1947? 1948?...so by and large UK scientists had the combined foundation of theoretical work completed, only the technical execution (and fissionable material supplies) to wrangle with.

      And about your overall position....so you believe the public should be heavily armed as the police? I mean, since the police having a monopoly on power would "inevitably" mean they are a bully, yes?
      That's just weird, man.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

      President != country. Largely, US presidents have *ALWAYS* been elected based on domestic concerns by an increasingly narcissistic and poorly educated electorate, ever more prone to demagoguery. (And I"m not just talking about the MAGA side, either.)

      Shrug. Trump's a boob and a nincompoop. He's not the 'bringer of end times child of satan' that the left-leaning media machine likes to portray (and gullible foreigners like to swallow).

      Just like Clinton, who was far more absorbed with getting head than being the Head of State, the US economy flourishes when the president is more absorbed in getting in twitter flame-wars than governing.

      I didn't vote for him, but if the choice was /solely/ between a skilled, polished, malignance like Clinton or an ineffective stupid narcissist like Trump, I would have. She would have been far more danger to the US fundamentally than him - think cancer vs full-body eczema.

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      What is scary is that next time you guys could elect someone truly evil rather then a boob. Your Supreme Court is politicized and likely to go along with evil rather then the rule of law due "party first"

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Except the Supreme Court has ALWAYS been politicized, and they've managed to do a pretty good job.

      Really, I'm getting tired of people acting like this is some sort of "new low" in American politics. Congressmen used to shoot each other and FDR tried to pack the USSC with up to another 36 tame judges*.

      I'm not saying that we couldn't elect someone evil, the US electorate is staggeringly stupid on BOTH sides and the internet has made demagoguery the tool of the day. We are frighteningly prone to Caesarism if a pretty, intelligent, charismatic, likely young person steps up and says "I have the plan to FIX ALL THIS SHIT, just make me dictator"...if they have the media on their side (ie it'll never be a conservative), we could quickly slide straight to hell on their bobsled of good intentions. I totally agree.

      But the court has almost nothing to do with it. The electoral system is what it is, and the Bush/Gore challenge in 2000 was essentially Democrats trying to cheat their way to victory but eventually they don't get another bite at the apple.

      And...as much as you might disagree, Conservatives (ie the majority of the court) aren't actually evil. They're people who come to different conclusions than you do, that doesn't inherently make them racists, homophobes, sexists, or Nazis. Largely, conservatives tend to prefer to leave things as they (thinking change will likely make it worse) are rather than trying to change things (which might make it better). This doesn't, again, make them evil.

      *"...six additional justices to the Supreme Court for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more...."

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Except the Supreme Court has ALWAYS been politicized, and they've managed to do a pretty good job.

      Hmm, Amendments 1 and 2 for example are very straight forward and simple. Yet your Supreme Court has ruled that certain speech is not protected, so fine for Congress to pass laws about and has also ruled that in quite a few cases, the right to own and bear arms can be infringed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      The right to bear arms HAS been infringed. I cannot, for example, walk down to the store and buy a machinegun. Or a cannon. Or landmines.

      That doesn't logically imply that we should expand such infringements, particularly when defined in panic or by people who are more interested in virtue-signaling to their voters than actually making someplace SAFER.

      I get the sense that you don't really even clearly understand what you're talking about.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:It depends on your viewpoint... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The point I was making was that clear rights are being infringed with the support of your Supreme Court. The 2nd is pretty clear, with a justification to be clear they were talking about arms in the military sense where really the only argument might be what are arms. Poison gas for example might no longer be considered an arm as it is internationally banned, whereas machine guns and cannon are obviously arms that would be needed by a militia.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  7. ECHELON by darkain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The United States is worried that China is doing in 2019 what the USA did starting in the 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:ECHELON by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yes. IIRC the Snowden reveletions had a detailed explanation on how to tap an undersea cable in a matter of hours, even if that seems incredible looking at the complexity of that thing. I just do not understand why those cable are not encrypted end to end, rendering any taping threat moot.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:ECHELON by infolation · · Score: 1

      I just do not understand why those cable are not encrypted end to end, rendering any taping threat moot.

      Or the end users could encrypt their own traffic themselves before it even gets to the cable, rendering the threat of surveillance from either side moot. Luckily the world's governments aren't lobbying to water down the strength of encryption at the moment.

  8. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you will follow the money it will be from the companies who lost out on contracts to Huawei, so now they spread FUD.

  9. Proof by Maelwryth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, this whole Huawei is selling equipment that can be used to spy would be very simply solved if the U.S. would show some proof. If they can't do that then they are either lying, aren't technologically able too or haven't been able too because Huawei can come straight back with U.S. equipment and show how it is being used to spy. Since 9/11 the U.S. has been a political disaster on the world stage and they just aren't trusted anymore. Not even by their allies.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
    1. Re:Proof by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      If the equipment supports updating the firmware over the 'net, then there is no way to prove it will never be modified for spying, is there?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Proof by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they can't do that then they are either lying, aren't technologically able too or haven't been able too because Huawei can come straight back with U.S. equipment and show how it is being used to spy.

      You missed a key - And likely most the important - Reason that the USA can't "prove it." Doing so will likely damage existing intelligence gathering operations and/or put intelligence operatives in harm's way.

      If the USA has an intelligence asset inside Huawei then revealing their proof might harm that asset.

      Things are further complicated by the fact that the White House doesn't keep secrets very well, so the intelligence services are likely hesitant to reveal their sources.

    3. Re:Proof by jezwel · · Score: 1

      ...haven't been able too because Huawei can come straight back with U.S. equipment and show how it is being used to spy

      Another possibility is that US intelligence agencies cannot guarantee they can hack Huawei devices without being discovered and/or their hack being used against them.

    4. Re:Proof by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      US probably using same technique for spying currently. *Proofing* huawei = exposing the aforesaid technique = make it unusable anymore.

  10. Huawei HAS done it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Huawei HAS done some of them already. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2223272/60-minutes-torpedoes-huawei-in-less-than-15-minutes.html

  11. Projection by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just like the Republicans view of Democrats, the U.S. intelligence agencies are thinking, "We're wiretapping all the undersea cables, so obviously the Chinese will too if they get the chance!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like the Republicans view of Democrats, the U.S. intelligence agencies are thinking, "We're wiretapping all the undersea cables, so obviously the Chinese will too if they get the chance!"

      Well the first point isn't wrong so...

  12. Re:Nope, the USA SAY they have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ^^ Found the Chi-Com apologist. Sorry you don't like the fact that Huawei has been caught a dozen or so times thieving and spying, aww. It doesn't change the fact though, sorry bitch. Tissue, Meng?

  13. Valerie Plame was outed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So that clearly is not an argument to stop giving out that evidence. And the current orange shitgibbon blurts out top secret info in a public resturaunt, FFS
    Moreover, the claim "We can't show you, that would endanger someone's life!" was used to hide the lie about WMDs in Iraq.
    You've lied multiple times and your excuse neither works nor held up before.

    1. Re:Valerie Plame was outed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "We can't show you, that would endanger someone's life!" was used to hide the lie about WMDs in Iraq" - No, it wasn't. Dick Cheney straight up lied about the nuclear program intentionally, but didn't use that argument.

      The problem was it wasn't fully established either way, and Saddam actually DID have WMD's. He had a large chemical stockpile, he sent some of it to Syria and buried some of it in bunkers. It was discovered.

      What was not discovered was evidence of claims that Iraq's nuclear program had been revived, though it was always a possibility and frankly they expected him to have done it because there was nothing stopping him.

      Dick Cheney knew the chemical weapons weren't enough to get his war. He pushed the "mushroom cloud" propaganda and the rest is history.

      That doesn't make Huawei's known thefts, frauds and espionage incidents, over a dozen publicly known and reported, any less serious or make their owner anyone other than who it is, the Chinese Communist Party.

      Just because you have a valid criticism of the handling of the Iraq war and all that, it doesn't change what Huawei is actually guilty of. Sorry.

      And nobody needs to show YOU jack shit here, because you're not even reading the publicly available record about Huawei's shady activities.

  14. You mean like the US did ? by aepervius · · Score: 2

    "These officials say the company's knowledge of and access to undersea cables could allow China to attach devices that divert or monitor data traffic -- or, in a conflict, to sever links to entire nations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... you know in the past 2 years it has been ... funny(?) to see the US accuse Huawei and china to prepare to do, or do, what they themselves did in the past.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  15. The USA is risking a lot here. This might break .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... the whole leverage that the US had on the EU and especially its key player, Germany.

    The EU always played along. Even when it came out that Merkel's phone was tapped, and everybody's spying agency was a serf to the US.

    But the last days, we saw, for the first time in my lifetime, that German officials told the USA straight up, the equivalent of "No. Fuck off."
    People on the streets in Germany already haven't exactly been pro-USA for a few years now, especially since the NSA leaks. But officials always crawled up US asses.
    Now, with Trump being such an incompetent dick and a joke on international levels (betraying even his supporters), we knew it might happen. And now, with that Huawei thing, he simply goes too far. It won't anymore. China and Russia are quite strong, and the EU is strong on its own too., but has been too much of a pussy to do it alone.

    What we're seeing now, is the first kid on the schoolyard standing up to the bully, and going "NO."

    If Trump doesn't stop... *now*... he'll have done it.
    And of course we know Trump. He's gonna double down. Which won't work anymore. He's gonna double down again. Helplessly going down the spiral of ending the era of the USA being the dominant superpower.

    People in Germany still wish you luck though. Let's hope he doesn't take all of you with him down the drain. Remember: It's your country. You're very likely more competent that your current president. So you do what you like with it. No hard feelings.

  16. Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The US invented a clever (and super-secret) technique during the Cold War. This was to spy on the Soviet Union. They used a "cradle" to implement the tapping system. The cradle only passively held the cable from the bottom; it never pierced the cable, nor did it restrict movement of the cable up and down.

    Why? Well undersea communications cables are not-uncommonly raised to the surface for maintenance and troubleshooting. The US wanted a system that could not be detected when this routine maintenance was happening. Even a full cable replacement would, if the spooks were lucky, drop right back into the cradle and surveillance would continue uninterrupted. And this system worked!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a25857/operation-ivy-bells-underwater-wiretapping/

    Google "Operation Ivy Bells" for more.

  17. Hence the interest in satellite Internet by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Although undersea cables could offer shorter data paths and lower latency than even mid-orbit satellite, using our new low-cost access to orbit to set up a large constellation would be a valuable hedge against loss of cable access.

  18. Re:You mean like evidence in a trial, proof? Yeah. by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Thanks Anon, I just read half of that transcript and it is the same thing again. No proof given but does include stuff like,

    "The state tells them what to do, and they do it. There is no hard evidence that's happened with Huawei, but the Obama administration has been unwilling to take the risk. "

    That's about as handy as me saying they didn't do it because of this. Awww, look at his little face.....You obviously don't get what I mean by proof. If you want me to believe the U.S. Intelligence services then get them to roll out someone who does know what they are talking about with documented proof of how to control Huawei equipment.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.