edit ref: https://www.ft.com/content/fa8e7ab4-3905-11e9-b856-5404d3811...

In China that's standard procedure. Party says you switch up everything you're doing for their whims you do it.

It is very common to have a "private" company, a party division and government department share a same registration address / contact person in China.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's what makes this issue so interesting. On paper we've fully embraced globalism while China has embraced outward globalism and inward nationalism. In reality the US market is still completely dominated by US companies or by companies from 'friendly' nations. E.g. in smartphones South Korea and USA make up the vast majority of all sales.

But now 'unfriendly' nations are increasingly creating products that are becoming not only competitive but in some cases industry leading. So we find ourselves in the position of countries such as China. Do you allow companies from 'unfriendly' nations to setup and start on what may be a path to dominance, or do you give unfair preference to domestic/'friendly' products? We never had this issue before because final product competition from 'unfriendly' nations was negligible!

And this is before you get into all the intelligence intrigue going on behind the scenes. The NSA has stated they have access to "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" [1] on the products of 'participating' companies including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others. Suffice to say companies such as Huawei are less likely to 'participate' in such activities.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

I imagine the USG will envoke national security protections to limit exposure of any information as they have in the past.

I don't really see this case going anywhere, more so with EU countries making similar claims and allegations of their operating practices.

Wow that's the last several decades in a nutshell.

That means nothing, even if today the Chinese intelligence services take absolutely no interest in penetrating Huawei - which is laughable - that can change. If five years from now Huawei 5G equipment is used to build your countries 5G network, the Chinese gov uses their equivalent of a NSL and it's game over.

Even if today's Huawei is clean.

That's the real threat model. And that's why the US threatened 5 eyes countries to take away their access if they use Huawei equipment.

Personally, I just wouldn't be surprised if Huawei is actually operating cleanly on paper (in terms of back doors) out of pragmatism and foresight because confrontation with US security apparatus seems inevitable. Hence the lack of evidence from even private security researchers with no incentive to conceal. Huawei knows they're not getting into US. The PR is for 190 other countries, some of which might be five eye allies with how things are going.

The US is in panic, because not only is there a sense of crisis because the rest of the world is less and less willing to put up with the undemocratic behaviour of the US spying apperatus, this also hurts every US tech product abroad.

If I have to choose between potential future spying by china and actual in progress spying by the US, maybe I might go with china for now.

cheaper yes, but not really more advanced. (speaking of their RAN technology as well as their O&M plane, also their cloud is a clusterfcuk)

> Hell even 3/5 Five Eyes are currently undecided.

could you elaborate a bit more please? My understanding was that Australia, NZ, and UK were all aligned with the narrative pushed by the US. Which leaves Canada?

UK (Along with Germany and Italy) said Huawei concerns could be managed a couple weeks ago within 24 hours of each other. Shortly after that NZ, previously seemed firm ban, had their PM publicly clarify on radio that Huawei was not ruled out. A bunch of Canadian articles released about how UK waffling allowed fellow allies room to breath and "make independent" decision soon followed. China hit Australia with some coal ban, Canada with canola oil (over Meng extradition). I think everyone's just trying to manage the situation until after US-China trade deal settles. UK needs Chinese money because of Brexit. NZ also needs Chinese money and has... nothing much to steal. Canada... well I don't think we can hand Meng over to US and ban Huawei without being in the penalty box forever.

Unrelated Poland wants to US base to buffer against Russia, they came down hard on Huawei because US won't base with Huawei infrastructure. Hence Germany considering Huawei is causing a lot of tension with all the US bases. Shouldn't have spied on Merkel I guess. It's all a mess.

Unless there's newer development. Like I said UK/CAN/NZ all waffled withing days of each other around time of article. It could just be theatre to help China save face, maintain trade while nominally soft ban. US declared after that they would not share intelligence with countries with Huawei kit. I don't think there's been development since. Who knows, if US trade deal with China screws over Five Eye allies - speculation that China is directing money from Canada canola oil, Australia coal to US coal and agriculture - maybe allies with be frustrated enough for the program to collapse.

The people that keep trying to defend that, have special Place with the people defending tobacco companies.

There is a long list of state security enforced backdoors in american products. The list for Huawei is short. The US typically assumes the tactics itself uses must be used by anybody else.

If you want us to choose between the Chinese and the Five Eyes spying on us, providing actual evidence for Chinese spying would be worth a lot for the side that has at least traces of “democratic oversight” left as a figleaf.

I can certainly imagine incentives for the Chinese why they wouldn’t risk their long term gain for a short term spying information. To spy on everybody might be totally without alternative from the perspective of a struggling empire that crumbles on all corners, but not for a newcomer who might win more by not killing its tech industries by showing they can’t be trusted.

Still, if there is compelling evidence I might change my mind on the matter.

There doesn't have to be a backdoor today. In the future, whenever they desire, the Chinese gov can ask Huawei for access and they will comply. That's the threat model.

Let’s assume you are not in the US and industrial spionage will be bad for you independend if it happens from China or from the US.

The answer isn’t that clearcut.

Also: banning a product based on the possibility that it could get a backdoor in the future? That would mean banning all products with an update functionality.

Edit: as you might notice this is not compelling evidence

Near as I can tell, you agree that Cisco is a hazard, in precisely the way that Huawei is accused of being but is not. Are you really just disagreeing with the proposition that nobody cares about Cisco's problems?

Yes, thats what I am disagreeing with... Nothing more nothing less. No word of Huawei, since they are considered a liability by default and I don't know people that work with telephony/cell-network infrastructure.

With Cisco it's systematic. I don't know if all their shit can be attributed to incompetence.

You are trying to change other people’s mind. You are pretending to ignore IP theft, fairness if courts, future party ordered back doors While hand waving some concerns

Ps your social credit score just dropped

Your position is weird, you need evidence that the Chinese are spying on you ? And you don’t think they do ? Ha too funny

You want proof that the Chinese communist party will never order them to insert a back door. ROTFL

You really are preparing your social credit score when the over lords arrive

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/amp...

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/china-stealing-f...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-02-01/piracy...

> This is just an appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't really discredit your parent's argument, which is more on topic.

So, we are supposed to accept the following:

- criticizing China, a relatively poor country, for stealing IP is OK. The world must confront China on these practices

- the US has the high ground, since it is not stealing IP (now)

Now I point out that the US has reached its current position as tech leader by doing roughly the same, and basically you tell me

- we are not talking about the US

- what the US did decades (centuries?) ago is not the topic of discussion, and it is not relevant to the discussion

How is my evidence not relevant to the discussion?

Now let me try to clarify what I am saying:

The technology lead that US has has been achieved largely by doing what the US is trying to prevent other countries from doing now. This technology lead has a huge impact on the world (the American tax), and the world should refuse to pay it. The world should follow exactly the same approach that the US followed in the past: disregard the rules, and concentrate on their own interests.

Because the system is rigged.

Drawing rules once you have achieved a dominant position, and trying to enforce them in order for others to remain behind and continue paying the tax to the tech leader is not in the interest of the world.

Once we have a balanced situation, you can think about putting rules for everybody to follow. "Everybody" means that there must be an independent organization, not politicized, in charged of enforcing the rules.

If I am not doing business in China, Russia, Vietnam, or South America the first thing I do in any environment is block those countries and LACNIC. Instantly my production security alerts drop by 2/3 and I get to sleep at night.