Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Chinese Telecom That Spooks the World

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the trust-us dept.

China 153

wrekkuh writes "The Economist has printed an interesting look at the concerns and speculations of the fast-growing Chinese telecom giant Huawei, and its spread into western markets. Of particular concern is Huawei's state funding, and the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, who once served as an engineer in the People's Liberation Army (PLA). However, another article from The Economist goes into greater detail about the steps Huawei has taken to mitigate some of these concerns in England — including co-operating with the GCHQ in Britain, the UK's signals-intelligence agency, to ensure equipment built by Huawei is not back-doored."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is that even possible? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888717)

How can you be absolutely sure they are not back-doored?

Re:Is that even possible? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888737)

You compare the byte-code to Cisco's.

Re:Is that even possible? (3, Funny)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888757)

But Cisco's have backdoors! i don't get it

Re:Is that even possible? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889159)

Did you hear about the new line of inflatable sex dolls for black men?

Yeah, it comes with a Brillo pad between the legs. Realistic!

Re:Is that even possible? (0, Offtopic)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889795)

Because that makes it be more like your mom?

Re:Is that even possible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889181)

well, in Cisco, I can tell you, any static passwords (like root accounts with anything not set by customer), it is simply, not allowed, and if done by developer, it is fixed, and public is notified as soon as possible. (there are controls, that by mistake my fail to detect, so yes, there are examples of this)

adding a backdoor would get the product under BIG heat from PSIRT

Buhahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889483)

All the buffer overflows courtesy of NSA are "mistakes" in Cisco products. Shirley.

Re:Buhahaha (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889939)

Those "mistakes" are only a small part of Cisco "features" - there are even more unknown exploits embedded inside Cisco hardware, courtesy of NSA and other 3-letter spy agencies working for Uncle Sam

Re:Is that even possible? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889725)

What about that access to home routers by the cloud, set up by an auto-update. You have to give the website your password in order to get to your router.

Re:Is that even possible? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40890251)

hell. What about those home routers that require net access just to log-in with the damn default? I've got a Netgear unit that frankly worries me because of this exact feature and I have to wonder just how much of my traffic is being sent past their effen servers for monitoring by whatever TLA agency you care to name

Re:Is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889839)

But Cisco's have backdoors! i don't get it

Those (supposed) backdoors are known and deliberate. When unintended backdoors appear they get fixed by Cisco.

Huawei backdoors are both intended and unintended, and the unintended ones go un-fixed forever. Once discovered they are exploited by everyone.

Re:Is that even possible? (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888967)

Even if they did 1:1 copy software side, hardware can have its own backdoors, hidden in the chips, completely invisible from software side.

And if you think that cisco doesn't have backdoors, I have land on the moon to sell you.

Re:Is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889085)

Yup, they steal everything.

But they're building their own, because they want to be the only ones who know about the security holes in their hardware. Copying someone elses, means they copy the holes that the other side already knows about.

They should keep trying for economic domination. Stealing tech is not the same as developing it. As they're obviously finding out ...

Re:Is that even possible? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889763)

USA seems to have done fine in this task, going from 1:1 copies of European technology to eventually developing and improving it, to USA it is today.

Re:Is that even possible? (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888813)

Faith, brother Coward, faith.

Re:Is that even possible? (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888905)

Huawei told them that I think of all concerns backdooring is one but I think they should worry not about backdoors now but about falling china independent vendors of vital equipment. Huwaei is as evil as other chinese companies - they do not have to bribe themselves if target is strategic enuff then chinese banks will start giving the govs around the target loans etc. This is not always so but it's been long time practice. Once your industry is gone it is difficult to get it back so you are dependent on sw/hw from others - back doored or not and this is the problem not whatever crap HW is selling now. It would be also nice to see where TE got the info about high quality etc SW from HW - I have not seen any yet and I work in industry for quite some years. Cheap it is however

Re:Is that even possible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888975)

By scanning chips.
By watching how they work under microscope.
Nothing can be hidden from this even with the best of technology.
Random testing will prevent special boards from reaching testing agencies.

It is paranoia at best. More so when it comes from the US because they already do such a thing.
China, strangely, are completely innocent in comparison to the US.

Re:Is that even possible? (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889921)

It is paranoia at best. More so when it comes from the US because they already do such a thing.

China, strangely, are completely innocent in comparison to the US.

 
China is not completely innocent - but compare to US, in term of spying technology, true, China is like a kindergarten kid as compare to Uncle Sam, a University Professor teaching PhD post graduate students
 

Re:Is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889219)

Why is every government falling all over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the oppressive Government of China? They never behaved the same way with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) until they embraced a political system closer to democracy.

racism much? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888759)

Why is it ok that all internet equipment cc's a copy to the usa, but not ok to send the same copy to china?

Re:racism much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888773)

Citation needed.

Re:racism much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888821)

Echelon sitll exists, and companies like myspace give their data to the police without a warrant, just any kind of informal request is enough for them to turn over everything they own, free of charge.. Furthermore the EU has data retention laws which at least in the Netherlands the local MAFIAA tries to get access to.

Also..
http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2012/03/eu-data-protection-law-and-the-patriot-act-in-the-cloud.html

My country is in the eu, why does the usa get a copy, and why should I care if china gets a copy either if our governments tolerate that from the usa?

Re:racism much? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888823)

Citation needed.

Right... because when the CIA backdoors equipment, they always post a page about it on Wikipedia.

You could start with this, though [wired.com] , to get the general idea of what they want.

Re:racism much? (5, Insightful)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889339)

Why was this modded negative? It is a reasonable question. So is it fine for the NSA to spy everything, but not china? Double value.

Re:racism much? (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889799)

Even if so, that's nationalism, not racism.

That's the particular concern? (3, Informative)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888785)

Re:That's the particular concern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888927)

That was really, really disturbing. Note to self, do not buy their hardware!

Re:That's the particular concern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889203)

Not that they're total shit from a security POV? [phenoelit.org] (warning: pdf)

Thanks for warning me about the PDF. Because I mean, hovering my mouse over the link for the 0.25 seconds it takes to see that on my own is just too hard.

And failing that, my browser stopping to give me the opportunity to Open, Save, or Cancel is just so confusing and hard to control.

This testing is useless... (4, Insightful)

sabri (584428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888799)

So, they are being tested by the security watchdog in the U.K. Big deal, they load up a specially prepped software image (like they do for all their customers) and pass the test. Next step is to have all operators buy their heavily discounted gear for almost nothing, implement it and have them install a critical software update to avoid exploits. Have that image backdoored and they are one step closer to total world domination.

Re:This testing is useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888919)

Fear not, one false move by China and the US will issue the command to ignite all of the tons and tons of dollar bills we've cunningly tricked them into stockpiling!!!

Re:This testing is useless... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888977)

Or you hide backdoor in the hardware, invisible from the actual hardware until initialized externally.

Re:This testing is useless... (2)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889355)

Not necessary at all. You do know the classic text on this, right? Reflexions on Trusting Trust [bell-labs.com] , by Ken Thompson.

Re:This testing is useless... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889127)

Read this.
http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/cyber-security-john-suffolk/ [theparliament.com]
CSEC get to see and test the source code (first line of penultimate paragraph). They aren't just pen-testing black boxes.

I'm posting purely public information as Anon because I know far more about this than I'm allowed to say.

Re:This testing is useless... (1)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889231)

I would be lots more impressed with this if parliaments could even design their code (laws) without bugs or loopholes.

Re:This testing is useless... (4, Interesting)

chihowa (366380) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889247)

Looking at source code is even more useless in this case than examining the black boxes that are actually being deployed. It's difficult to prove that the source they're looking at is what is on the actual sold devices. And looking at the source gives no information about backdoors implemented in hardware.

Re:This testing is useless... (1)

mauriceh (3721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40890073)

You are right, but:

IF the OS and patches on these is open source, AND the users are in control of installing these items and updates, AND the source is kept on a public repository, then there is a chance it could be legit.

Re:This testing is useless... (2)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889409)

I think the credibility of that security audit has just been seriously undermined given the recent revelations that Huawei's routers are riddled with security problems [slashdot.org] . GCHQ was supposed to be auditing these things to ensure that they were fit for use on the UK's national infrastructure; things like 3G/LTE networks, airports, highways, powerstations, railways, and so on. So, which is it? Either they failed to find the vulnerabilities, even with the advantage of access that Felix Lindner presumably didn't have when he found the vulnerabilities, and so the audit is worthless. Alternatively, GCHQ found them and decided it was better to risk any part of the UK's national infrastructure that used Huawei routers on the off chance that the UK government might be able to use the exploits against a foreign infrastructure in, say, Africa, China, or the Middle East where Huawei has a fair sized market presence.

Then again, they might have found the vulnerabilities, pretended they hadn't for the look of the thing, and any sensitive tender that might end up utilising Huawei equipment would get a discreet visit from someone senior at Cheltenham or Whitehall to advise them that, just maybe, one of the other tenderers might be a "better choice" for being the successful bidder...

Re:This testing is useless... (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889581)

GCHQ is hardly a security watchdog - the closest US equivalent would be the NSA.

They're the signals intercept and codebreaker agency of the UK government. One presumes they know their shit when they're looking for backdoors planted by the chinese intelligence servives.

A Few Possible Points (1)

wrekkuh (2647839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889601)

and have them install a critical software update to avoid exploits.

I love how Cisco did something along these lines recently, [slashdot.org] including the siphoning off of web history, along with a slew of other privacy violations completely in the clear, with no permission whatsoever.

Another possible point of hypocrisy is the CIA's partial funding of Facebook, [zdnet.com] which seems to suggest that if a foreign company wants to build a network in the US, that is government funded, it's a National Security issue... but if a domestic company, which is funded by the US government, wants to build a network all over the world, and a foreign government says, "Um, no." then it's censorship.

There is also the fact that Huawei has hired a former defense contractor for the US government as it's Chief Security Officer [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:This testing is useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40890103)

GCHQ is not a "security watchdog", it's a hugely resourced and extremely technically advanced government-funded agency. Think the UK equivalent of the NSA, and you'd be in the right ballpark.

even designed in USA = made in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888805)

You can trust equipment designed and made in China, or equipment designed in USA and made in China. But both China and USA want backdoors, so what diff? Who cares if it's China or USA's intelligence orgs that have the backdoor?

The reason (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888837)

The Reason the US is concerned about other countries using telecommunication equipment for spying is because they have done it already. A lot.

If you don't want to be spied on, encrypt it.

Re:The reason (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889011)

If you don't want to be spied on, encrypt it.

Even if you encrypt your communications, they can still see who you are talking to. Sometimes knowing who you are talking to can be almost as valuable as knowing what you are saying.

Re:The reason (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889077)

Yes, and even if you encrypt it, your key can be stolen, or the person you are talking to can be captured without your knowledge.

However, if you don't encrypt your stuff, you might as well be broadcasting it (if it is encrypted, broadcasting might not be a bad idea. Makes it harder to discover the intended target).

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889791)

Broadcasting it in the clear without a specific destination can be advantageous over encrypting it and sending it to a specific destination, when that destination can be known.

Of course, this highly depends on the content of the message.

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889021)

The Reason the US is concerned about other countries using telecommunication equipment for spying is because they have done it already.

Who the hell do these foreigners think they are? The US is clearly the only country in the world allowed to spy on its citizens!

Larga Vida al Fascinista Americano!

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889023)

...
If you don't want to be spied on, encrypt it.

It is not only spying, but also the possibility of sabotaging communication, and the use of equpiment as basis of cyber warfare, whatever that should mean...

Not just the US (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889083)

post WW2, the UK sold enigma-based encryption machines to Empire/Commonwealth countries. Of course, they didn't tell the recipients that the UK could crack enigma encryption with ease.... Its why the wartime decoding of enigma remained a state secret until the early 70s, when even the most poverty-stricken Commonwealth countries had moved onto something a bit more sophisticated!

Its important to know what both "friends" and enemies are saying about you!

Re:The reason (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889097)

If you don't want to be spied on, encrypt it.

*ugh!* If your encryption isn't classified, it's worthless [wikipedia.org] ...

The encryption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889119)

If you don't want to be spied on, encrypt it.

Guvf vf nal rapelcgrq ercyl. Ubcrshyyl gur AFN pna'g ernq guvf.

in a related field ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888855)

I would not be surprised if they have hardware that's not compromised, and hardware that is. Non-destructively checking to ensure that each piece is per spec would be remarkably challenging. However, the odds are very low that they're putting much into most of their products, because more exposure yield a higher risk, and any demonstration of a backdoor would kill the company.

backdoors (2, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888865)

When we buy stuff from China without a corresponding increase in our own exports, they've already backdoored our economy.

Re:backdoors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888973)

Ah yes, good old mercantilism. I suppose we should also start hoarding gold and exporting manufactured goods in exchange for more gold that we'll lock away in a fort, that'll show the rest of the world!

Or, you know, you could actually bother to learn something about economics and finally realize that trade is not a zero-sum game.

Re:backdoors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889093)

ummm, actually trade really is pretty much a zero sum game. you might want to take an intro to international econ class or something...

Re:backdoors (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889319)

ummm, actually trade really is pretty much a zero sum game. you might want to take an intro to international econ class or something...

Only in the long run. And you know what Keynes had to say about the 'long run'...

Re:backdoors (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889891)

Yes, but unlike Keynes, I have kids, and would like them to live in a country that's not totally fucked up from a disregard for long term thinking.

Re:backdoors (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40890013)

The latter part of your comment would make you unique in just about any corporate boardroom in the US, and, for certain industries, the world.

Sadly.

Re:backdoors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889207)

GTFO neo-con faggot.

Re:backdoors (2)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889367)

Exporting manufactured goods is what makes Germany what it is, and the shift of them from US to anywhere else, well.... see the lower class of the two countries and then we talk.

Re:backdoors (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889087)

To quote Mankiew: What's your trade deficit with your barber?

Better title (4, Funny)

dszd0g (127522) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888871)

The Chinese Telecom That Spooks the Spooks

Not any *more* backdoored, you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888885)

including co-operating with the GCHQ in Britain, the UK's signals-intelligence agency, to ensure equipment built by Huawei is not back-doored.

More specifically, to make sure there's not any EXTRA backdoors besides the CIA one...

underhanded code (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40888907)

As anyone familiar with the underhanded code contest [xcott.com] knows, it's possible to create code that looks fine, easily passes reviews from people even who are on the lookout for back doors, yet still contains back doors.

It's essentially impossible to prove that your equipment is NOT backdoored, unless you designed and built it in-house and believe that your own engineering staff is trustworthy (its own problem, when there is a history of governments buying off employees within companies that have access to critical data and processes).

Hum (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#40888963)

I thought it was ZTE that really scared the world. I'm pretty sure ZTE's management was tied to the People's Liberation Army.

You f4il it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889017)

They don't need back doors! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889025)

I normally don't post anonymously but my employer deals with Huawei.

According to Recurity Labs they don't need a back door when the front door is locked with a piece of masking tape that says in faded yellow ink "Do not enter". Huawei's security is a joke. Their software is riddled with buffer overflows, including buffers allocated on the stack making hacking their stuff trivial. Huawei has virtually zero security. Much of their stuff runs on VxWorks which is quite insecure. (I spent many years writing software for VxWorks). All you have to do is get to the T-shell and you're basically god. In the T-shell you can look at and modify variables and memory and call C functions directly, passing whatever arguments you want.

Even without the T-shell it looks like it's easy to get to the shell with full admin privileges on Huawei's boxes. See their DEFCON presentation at: http://www.phenoelit.org/stuff/Huawei_DEFCON_XX.pdf [phenoelit.org]

If you value security, stay far away from Huawei. Their stuff is cheap but you get what you pay for. I guess it's good for the US that Huawei is mostly used in the Middle East and Asia. It makes life easy for the NSA.

Philanthropist agencies REMOVE backdoors for once? (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889029)

co-operating with the GCHQ in Britain, the UK's signals-intelligence agency, to ensure equipment built by Huawei is not back-doored

Sure, eliminating eavesdropping opportunities is just the kind of business that SigInt spooks kindly engage in all the time...

Not the first country to hate on Huwei (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889079)

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/huawei-banned-making-equipment-bids-australias-nbn/2012-03-26 [fiercetelecom.com]

Not just a handicap against them, and no reason given. It's not like there are a lot of world class Australian router companies. They are buying Taiwanese, French-ish, and US-ish, so it isn't nationalism. Just seems to be anti-China sentiment, with no substance backing it up, in this case, or the Aussie NBN.

Dear Chinese people: (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889129)

We do not distrust you, we do not dislike you.

We distrust and dislike your authoritarian government. We do not want your government to have more power in the world. Not because we are afraid of or oppose the empowerment of China on the world stage, or have anything against Chinese culture or Chinese people. But because we oppose authoritarian government, of any kind, from any part of the world.

We DO have a built in prejudice against your government (not against you), because your government clearly attempts to control and manipulate communication channels. Yes, they also manipulate communication channels in the West, but not for state control of political dialogue.

We in the West believe the ability to express our political opinions freely is very important to the health of our society, that is how and why we call our society free (despite the fact some of our media companies are trying to hurt our freedoms on our communication structure in the effort to prop a media business model that only works in a world without the Internet: don't worry, they will clearly fail, their efforts are the death throes of a dying way of business).

You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.

I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash. Here in the West, we believe that the natural competition of ideas that only comes from every single one of them being freely expressed, NATURALLY leads to the flawed opinions sinking and the good opinions rising. Only in this natural competition of ideas do good ones endure the test of criticism and one fail it. If the state attempts to impose its own idea son the people, the state itself might wind up imposing ideas that are flawed, because they are unexamined. The people know better than the state, in this way. In other words, state control of politicla thought is a form of weakness that will eventually harm China.

So Chinese people: since you cannot likewise criticize your own government freely within China, do you not have a problem with this fact? If you are proud to be Chinese, as you should be, do you not believe you should be free to speak your mind like I can in your effort to make China strong as a Chinese patriot?

Chinese people: please understand that we in the West respect the Chinese people and wish you prosperity and freedom. And so we await the day you respect yourselves as well to not be treated like slaves by your own government, and to throw off the yolk of the efforts at mind control which exists in Beijing, pointed against the Chinese people and the free expression of your own thoughts, an effort whose only purpose is to serve the continuation of a power structure that is not necessarily good for China, only good for a few rich and connected Chinese at the detriment of all other Chinese.

Sure, this authoritarian power structure has done great things for you economically. But growth doesn't last forever, and when your economy fully matures, I am confident you finally turn your attention to freeing yourselves from the authoritarian government who wants to control your mind and your thoughts.

Dear USA people: (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889175)

We do not distrust you, we do not dislike you.

We distrust and dislike your authoritarian government. We do not want your government to have more power in the world. Not because we are afraid of or oppose the empowerment of USA on the world stage, or have anything against USA culture or USA people. But because we oppose authoritarian government, of any kind, from any part of the world.

We DO have a built in prejudice against your government (not against you), because your government clearly attempts to control and manipulate communication channels. Yes, they also manipulate communication channels in Europe, but not for state control of political dialogue.

Re:Dear USA people: (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889241)

from the comment you are responding to:

You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.

I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash.

see how I inoculated my comment against yours?

it's so easy to see you braindead false equivalency idiots coming a mile away. i'm sure you didn't even read my comment before formulating your useless mental vomit

Re:Dear USA people: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889301)

see how I inoculated my comment against yours?

It doesn't make what you say true. At least China only censors within China, while the USA censors within the whole world.

So there is no equivalence indeed: the USA is widely considered the larger threat.

Re:Dear USA people: (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889353)

sir:

i respect your right to spout factually wrong, dimwitted nonsense

there's really nothing else one can say otherwise in response to what you think and believe

Re:Dear USA people: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889577)

Let me guess... you are from the USA?

Well... the rest of the world thinks YOU are the problem. Wake up and stop throwing stones when you live in glass houses. Perhaps you have missed the last few hundred /. stories about all the things your own country is doing around the world to the detriment of freedom everywhere? Perhaps you have missed it using its economic clout to muscle other countries into passing laws the USA wants them to have? Perhaps you have missed it shutting down internet sites in other countries with no legal reason?

Look to your own house first please before criticizing others.

Re:Dear USA people: (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889685)

hurrr durrr snort

it's not a team sport, moron, this is not a football game

i said my country has done plenty evil in the world. now do you want to move beyond the nationalist tribal chest thumping nonsense?

where are you from? perhaps some magical land squeaky clean and without any evil actions in its history?

but maybe, since such a country does not exist, maybe you yourself should refrain your comments to principles and ideas, and not project mindless hate in the name of nationalist rancor as you currently do, thereby making you just as stupid and evil as everything you hate about the USA

you don't beat your enemy, genius, by becoming as bad as him

Re:Dear USA people: (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889771)

Let me guess... you are not from the USA?

So stop us.

If you think we are getting to uppity by asking for Julian Assange to be extradited, say 'no'.
If you think Apple's lawsuits are ridiculous, say 'no'.
If you think you shouldn't help our military activities, say 'no'.
If you think McDonald's is a blight on your local cuisine, say 'no'.
If you think Bud is pisswater that shouldn't be allowed in your country, say 'no'.

The USA is like a vampire. We only have power in your home when you invite us in. Close the door on us. Send us home.

Re:Dear USA people: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889677)

i respect your right to spout factually wrong, dimwitted nonsense

Notice how you resorted to an ad-hominem attack as soon as it was pointed out that YOUR country does things just as bad as what China does? The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Re:Dear USA people: (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889733)

can you read?

You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.

I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash.

i already said everything you think you are telling me. you think what you have written is some sort of amazing original thought of yours that never occured to anyone?

the ad hominem attacks comes from dealing with fucking morons like yourself, who don't even bother reading or thinking before responding!

furthermore, you are a hypocrite. how can i say this?

tell me what country you are from

i will then google that country, find something evil form your country's past, and then declare you are incapable of ever criticizing me, or the USA, or another country ever again, based on that evil your country did. because you would be a hypocrite

does that sound reasonable to you? no?

then shut up and start thinking based on principles and not based on nationalistic chest thumping. of COURSE i can criticize any country i want. this is my right, as is your right, and it does not mean i excuse or absolve my own country of any sins. can you possibly wrap your mind around this amazing concept?

Re:Dear USA people: (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889345)

Oh, the AC read it. Copy pastaed it in fact. The first two 'graphs. Right up until continuing would have appeared even dumber than what he did copy.

Re:Dear USA people: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889359)

good point. the power of irony?

Re:Dear Chinese people: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889467)

When they grow mature, they will surely use drones and missiles to kill the guntoting hillbillies of North Dakota. They will call it a "counter-terrorist operation".

Re:Dear Chinese people: (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889507)

thank you for your gross mischaracterization. when you mature psychologically and intellectually, do try to participate more constructively. unless sounding like a jackass is your primary goal. in which case "Mission Accomplished" ;-)

Re:Dear Chinese people: (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889787)

When they grow mature, they will surely use drones and missiles to kill the guntoting hillbillies of North Dakota. They will call it a "counter-terrorist operation".

Ya know, could you at least pick the right targets? The gun toting hillbillies are in North Carolina. I should know, I'm descended from them.

Bombing the wrong targets just turns you into the thing you claim to hate.

Re:Dear Chinese people: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889661)

Wow, this is just rich coming from the country of "extraordinary rendition", torturing its political enemies, locking up its whistle blowers, and planting false crimes against people who embarrass it.

Re:Dear Chinese people: (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889945)

false equivalency

find where i mention that concept in the comment you are responding to

understand the stupidity of it

thank you

Re:Dear Chinese people: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889835)

Don't pretend to speak on my behalf. I distrust them AND I dislike them.

China is quite possibly The Worst Place On Earth, and "Chinese culture"---now there's an oxymoron---has a lot to do with that.

thank you for your hate (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889941)

asshole

they Bought the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889185)

they bought the article are you really surprised...

GCHQ is a fob off Huawei's already been proven to have a multitude of "reporting home" problems...

have fun

Uphill PR Battle: Those Concerns are Growing (5, Interesting)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889193)

ZDNet [zdnet.com] , CNN [cnn.com] .

A Cipher For Syria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889449)

http://alkindicipher.wordpress.com

Huawei (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889509)

I will never buy a piece of Huawei gear if I have a choice. Early versions of their documentation were a direct copy/paste from Cisco's CCO. Cisco proved this by pointing out all of the intentional spelling errors that were in the exact place throuout the documentation. Stealing is not innovating.

Usual Alarmist, Xenophobic and racist perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889571)

I know a lot of people from different parts of the world who are not at all worried about "A Rising China" -- they all have decent IQ, which might explain why they see everything in right perspective and tell me to calm down.

It doesn't matter (1)

Mr. Lwanga (872401) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889895)

They can't catch Chinese athletes that are doping, I doubt they can tell if Huawei gear is not back-doored.

Huawei putting in back-doors is not the problem. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40889903)

I work for a telco supplier, so have had glimpses into the weird world of what happens behind the shonky service and bills.

Huawei when they started out produced kit that was 'very similar' to Cisco. Now you suggest that perhaps they were paying too much homage to their US competitor, but it did mean their kit was pretty easy to deploy. You can setup a VPN in IOS, you can switch to Huawei kit and barely notice the difference.

Next bit of their success was how they engaged with the customer. Legacy vendors have whole stacks of sales all hell-bent on shafting the telco for as much money as possible. Huawei wanted a foothold, kit was cheaper, but they really put in some effort to push the sale - Buy your new network from us, and we'll let you buy it on lease over a decade, our engineers will install/config/support it for you, we'll tweak stuff if it currently doesn't do what you want etc. Legacy vendors might have got a bit of a kicking from the dot.com crash, but they still dragged in the overly-complex vendor structure that makes that makes the proposal of similar flexible solutions somewhat difficult. Simply meant that if you were a small player with a valid business model, picking Huawei allowed you to very easily work out what the kit was going to cost you.

With regards to spying, if they were, it wouldn't be let anywhere near the tier zeros. As far as I can make out, there's no real evidence of China using Huawei to spy and most of the allegations come from the incumbents/vested interests, trying to come up with a reason to oppose the shift in purchasing.

If you're worried about back-doors - don't. They're already everywhere. I've been in plenty of offices which have the 'special room' that everything has to go through and telco employees don't even have the keys to. So just to carry on with this, if your kit DOESN'T have a back-door, it ain't going to be deployed. The only real topic of interest is just working out who holds the back-door-keys.

Re:Huawei putting in back-doors is not the problem (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40890407)

There are the backdoors you know about, and then there's the backdoors you don't. The concern isn't really china eavesdropping. The fact of the matter is, they've got the talent to just hack their way in with or without a backdoor. The concern is that China is producing a large percentage of the networking equipment in the world right now, and it would be very easy for them to introduce something far smaller, and far more dangerous. For example, a kill switch. They broadcast some per-determined signal or something and 90% of the routers outside of short their power supplies across a resistor, spiking their power usage all at once world wide causing blackouts and frying all of the equipment. The utility of that isn't all that great but it would be devastating during a war and nearly impossible to detect in their code. The possibilities are endless.

A private, for-profit company would never invest in such things and anything of the sort that would arise would be the result of a bug or something forced on them by federal regulation. Either way, whatever it was that compromised the equipment would be an accident and far less dangerous. When the company is funded and run by the state... and their motives are governed by ideology rather than profit, you can never truly know what the equipment is capable of. You could literally be installing a bomb in your rack and not even know it.

It's GCHQ who are back-dooring Huawei (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40889949)

"another article from The Economist goes into greater detail about the steps Huawei has taken to mitigate some of these concerns in England â" including co-operating with the GCHQ in Britain, the UK's signals-intelligence agency, to ensure equipment built by Huawei is not back-doored".

Shouldn't that be the steps Huawei has taken to ensure equipment built by Huawei can be back-doored by GCHQ as easily as the spooks can back-door western companies.

"Internet Security Systems researcher Tom Cross unveiled research on how easily the "lawful intercept" function in Cisco's IOS operating system can be exploited" Feb 2010 [forbes.com]

Doing it wrong! Require freedom & release desi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40890423)

I think the right way to ensure security is to require these companies to release the designs and source code. We shouldn't be relying on closed technology. It's a hazard which will bite us in the ass. It already has bitten everybody who utilises any kind of technology. If you shave and bought the cheaper razer you probably pay too much for the blades. If you bought a computer you got screwed all over. From the operating system software to the printer. You can't update the operating system without paying through the nose or retain the same printer year after year. The printer's dependent on a particular manufacturer's ink cartridges and then stops working after an upgrade due to discontinued support for newer operating systems. All of which can be resolved by requiring companies to open up the technology.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?