from the we-want-our-comms-with-no-cables^W-strings-attached dept.
The UK Government has still not made a final decision on the inclusion of Huawei in the UK's 5G networks, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright has said.
Mr Wright warned some assumptions about Huawei and how embedded it was in some parts of existing networks were "wrong" and was not helping the debate.
Giving evidence to MPs at the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, he said concerns raised about Huawei were less about the threat of espionage but because of engineering issues with the firm's equipment.
Fears have been raised that Huawei could be used by the Chinese state as a route to spy on the West, with the US pressuring allies to distance themselves from the company.
But Mr Wright said Huawei was already the subject of stricter analysis than many other companies because of the "nature of Huawei and where it comes from".
Source: https://techerati.com/news-hub/huawei-hysteria-is-a-false-alarm-culture-secretary-tells-mps/
Related Stories
Report: Google argues the Huawei ban would hurt its Android monopoly
The Trump administration would probably describe its Huawei export ban as a move that improves national security by keeping China's pet telecom company out of the US market. According to a report from The Financial Times, Google's recent discussions with the US government actually argue that the Huawei ban is bad for national security. Google is reportedly asking for an exemption from the export ban.
The argument, reportedly, is that Huawei is currently dependent on Google for its Android smartphone software, and that dependence is a good thing for the US. The Financial Times quotes "one person with knowledge of the conversations" as saying, "Google has been arguing that by stopping it from dealing with Huawei, the US risks creating two kinds of Android operating system: the genuine version and a hybrid one. The hybrid one is likely to have more bugs in it than the Google one, and so could put Huawei phones more at risk of being hacked, not least by China."
[...] Google's control over the Android ecosystem—even when devices don't use the Google apps—means there is still some level of security and updateability going into these devices. Google's first argument in that Financial Times report is that more secure devices are better for national security.
The second argument in the above quote is that a ban would "create two kinds of Android" and hurt Google's monopoly over Android. If you're a smartphone manufacturer looking for a smartphone OS, Android is the only game in town. The latest worldwide OS market share numbers from the IDC show an 86.6/13.3 percent share between Android and iOS, respectively, with "Other" clocking in at 0.0 percent market share. Taken as a whole, the US has a smartphone OS monopoly.
More secure devices (used by foreign targets for NSA hacking) are better for national security? Nice try, Google.
Previously: Huawei Working on its Own OS to Prepare for "Worst-Case Scenario" of Being Deprived of Android
Huawei Hysteria is a False Alarm, Culture Secretary Tells MPs
Google Pulls Huawei's Android License
The Huawei Disaster Reveals Google's Iron Grip On Android
Huawei Calls on U.S. to Adjust its Approach to Tackle Cybersecurity Effectively
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @09:20AM (1 child)
Politics is a strange beast, to be sure.
But, I find it bizarre that the UK's committee for 'Digital' is lumped in with Culture, Media, and Sports. Sure, I can see how it *historically* ended there, but now? This file should have its own committee.
To highlight that, how do you find MPs to sit on said committee, that happened to have some toe in sports, media, culture AND digital. And to highlight that, 'digitial' falls under 'culture'?
This isn't TV, gents. Dealing with issues like state security, hacking, hardware vulnerabilities, infrastructure...
Well, anyhow. I'm sure many other governments aren't doing much better. I know mine isn't.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday May 11 2019, @01:30PM
It was created propaganda committee.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @10:51AM
in this case is the security of a nation.
Better the devil you know?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday May 11 2019, @11:46AM (12 children)
excuse me, culture secretary. What are your experience in terms of reverse engineering software firmware and hardware?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @12:02PM (11 children)
Huawei has a center in Brussels [techcrunch.com] where government auditors come in, review the code, and build it against Huawei's keys while md5ing the the firmware to make sure it's the same as the one found in the routers.
A similar arrangement was conducted with the Germans a few months ago.
Btw, Cisco doesn't go through any such audits. Which explains how the CIA managed to backdoor it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @02:02PM
And explains why certain people are against Huawei.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @05:18PM (9 children)
The CIA didn't backdoor Cisco products at production. They backdoored it by redirecting it during delivery, putting their malware/backdoor in, and then delivering compromised product. This is well documented, and Cisco took efforts to evade that.
Once someone has control of the hardware, then have control of "many things". Including the ability to have shadow roms, secondary CPUs, and avoiding such tactics won't be easy, unless you're able to easily pull apart hardware, pull eeproms/flash devices, and dump their entire contents. And even then, unless you cut the top off of them, and electron microscope those same chips to examine their logic -- you're never quite sure what surprises are there.
And that's the real problem. The firmware is only part of the issue. And even more importantly, unless you plan to have ALL new hardware go through a stringent QA process on arrival, including a teardown of key components.. .well....
To me, this means that Huawei is in deep trouble, with the PR campaign against it. The campaign MAY be legit, it may not.. but as things go now? How does one prove innocence?
It's not easy.
The worst part is that there is indeed a difference between Chinese culture, and Western. I'm not going to espouse either culture as better than the other, but the problem is that "The West", has seen decades of what it views as "sneaky" or "corrupt" behaviour from Chinese companies, and the government itself.
EG, every person that buys a hammer that breaks due to poor quality, every retailer that bought textiles after examining samples, only to have the actual shipped product be very poor in comparison, every case of entirely fake Western companies being set up in China, every case of IP being stolen by Chinese firms, all of these things, and more?
Are now causing a major trust issue. Because in each of the above cases, what The West expected, was not what was delivered.
From my side, I view China as "the wild west". So much growth, so fast, and a massive societal change under way ... laws haven't caught up. It took hundreds of years, for our laws to adapt to the type of high-tech, mass production, IP society we have now, and the Chinese are having to do it in 20 years.
There's no blame here, but in the case of Huawei? I think these issues, and those cultural differences are going to burn them...
As a side note? When Canada arrested Huawei's CFO on a foreign country's legit (via treaty) warrant, China went ballistic. They actually attempted to put *political* pressure on Canada, with the very bizarre and inexplicable belief that, for example, the Prime Minister could order her release. Or another political figure.
No. Canada's legal system doesn't work like that, but with a second glance.. it makes sense that some in China might not "get it".. because their political and legal system *does* sway to those "in the know" and "with power".
China just didn't get it. It threatened, it executed our citizens, it arrested citizens of ours in China, it bullied.
Yet even for all of that, she will still get a fare extradition trail and hearing. When the decision is made, it will be made regardless of China's blustering, China's bullying, or any lack thereof.
And China? Still doesn't understand that.
And this great cultural divide, is likely another reason why Huawei is screwed.. because in China? Yes, most certainly, the Chinese government COULD simply walk in, take control of the company, and that's that.
And that would NEVER happen in, for example Canada, EVER. Or the US. Not without courts, public courts.
Because otherwise? Our society would crumble... as this is a key pillar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @06:58PM
They did the same with HP and other companies too. It is so well known, that Carly Fiorina bragged about doing so during her presidential run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @08:34PM (2 children)
Except for SNC-Lavalin. That company got tons of political help after they broke trade restrictions. Funny how the Canadian government snuck special rules into a budget bill to defer prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It's basically a get out of jail card for corporations that break trade/environment/consumer laws. The prime minister and members of his office tried to bend the process using political pressure.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @11:42PM (1 child)
SNC-Lavalin is a court case? Funny, even you describe it as something else.
What you're describing is a "scandal". And what is a scandal? Hmm?
Is it, maybe, something that could cause governments to fall? Politicians to be charged, or lose their seats?
Is it -- maybe, just maybe, the system working to punish those that acted improperly?
Why do you think it is a scandal, even?
Do you even know anything about this, other than what a wikipedia article showed you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12 2019, @02:44PM
You don't seem to understand at all. You're just full of random questions and stupid non sequiturs. Just like the politicians involved in this mess. Didn't you even watch the Simpsons cartoon about it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @08:34PM (1 child)
The legal system is not a computer program, as you seem to believe. If the stakes are high enough, political considerations will be taken into account. Canada is a middle weight in international diplomacy. The big boys in the room are the US and China.
Canada has a kid's level of choice. Either Canada releases the Huawei exec they are holding for the big boy to the south, and China releases Canadian criminals held there on compassionate grounds. Or Canada chooses to play boneheaded and extradites the exec to the US, and China executes or imprisons the criminals it holds. Wonder how that will play in Moncton.
This is such a no-brainier in international diplomacy, that unless Canada has completely lost all spine to the US, why should Canada let its citizens suffer for the benefit of the US?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @11:36PM
Lost all spine to the US?
I don't know where you live, or what culture you grew up in, but the very choice you present is somewhat telling to me.
You present two choices. Either Canada "does a political thing" and releases to China, or Canada does "another political thing" and bends to US political pressure.
Because your US choice? Is political.
Canada is not perfect. You will find flaws, you will be able to point fingers at imperfections.
But at the end of the day? We very, very, very much believe in the rule of law.
And our rule of law? Says politics are irrelevant here.
That's it. Period.
There is literally no process for our political branch, to interfere in the trial. Judges, lawyers would very literally be absolutely *outraged* at the very idea of it.
What ever culture, what ever viewpoint you hold, as you gaze at Canada right now? You just *don't get it*.
It doesn't work that way.
And the more pressure placed by external forces? The *more* we fall back on legalities. On dotting our I's, and crossing our T's. On doing it *right*, and *right* means *following the law*.
Because we actually, really, legitimately believe in it, as a nation. And yes of course, like any nation there is a lot of disagreement...
But like any nation, the more *external* pressure placed upon us? The more we come together. The more it becomes "us" versus "them".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 11 2019, @10:58PM (2 children)
Indeed. Those who don't know the history are condemned to repeat its mistakes
For instance:
- Japan between '50 and '70 [wikipedia.org]
- South Korea between '60 and '80 [wikimedia.org]
Where are they now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11 2019, @11:47PM
I read an interesting article a while back, it was about defense spending worldwide...
Point was, that defense spending by nations? Are listed in USD. EG, US spends $50USD, China spends $10USD, Russia spends $20USD.
But, the article pointed out -- that those figures should be re-worked. Because it should be shown as "equipment bought" or "things done" with that money.
Because in China? When you buy from domestic factories? When you hire domestic scientists, and set up domestic institutes? You're doing that IN China, with their currency, at their wages.
So in reality? That $10USD spent, gives MORE than the US gets when it spends its $50USD. And the same for Russia, for it's also buying internally. Almost all of its military spending is domestic.
So in truth?
The US no longer has the largest military budget....
So stepping back a bit, my point is...
When companies have R&D programs, if those firms are in China?
Then they can hire WAAAAY more scientists, build more equipment, the list goes on... and so for much less, can research much more...
I agree with you, that China is definitely growing in power very rapidly...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday May 11 2019, @11:57PM
"Where are they now?"
Just checked, they both seem to occupy the approximate space they did before........:D
So sorry, the smartass in me insisted.....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.