Daniel Halliday
May 8 · Last update 1 mo. ago.

Whose equipment poses a greater threat, US' or Chinese?

Following the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on December 1st 2018, America has accused her of fraud, banned Huawei products, accused the company of building surveillance ‘backdoors’ (possible routes for hackers) into their equipment and having links to the Chinese government. While the company refutes these allegations, the Chinese government have long accused the United States of conducting illegal surveillance campaigns against the Chinese government and key institutions. In addition, when considering the extent of US mass surveillance campaigns leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, which is really the bigger surveillance threat? aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/countries-banning-huawei-181206130850129.html bbc.com/news/technology-27587551 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)
Stats of Viewpoints
China’s actual tech threat is insubstantial
0 agrees
0 disagrees
So many security analysts can’t be wrong
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Industrial espionage - Chinese investment/patent stealing
0 agrees
0 disagrees
US Tech Surveillance - The pot calling the kettle black
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint

China’s actual tech threat is insubstantial

Some have raised concern over the validity of claims that Huawei equipment poses any more of a security risk to a country than any other foreign telecommunications manufacturer's equipment would. In the BBC’s Panorama documentary series journalists spoke to a wide array of national security, cyber-security and hacking experts but failed to determine the existence of any security ‘backdoor’ or surveillance risk posed by the market leader's equipment. Instead many experts described the only problem with some Huawei equipment to be nothing to do with surveillance but simple security flaws, any intention for this being deliberate remains unclear, but such flaws are upgradable, so undoable or reversible. It is therefore misleading to argue that Huawei equipment alone poses a unique security risk, which is possibly behind the choice of countries such as Belgium, Germany and Britain’s who did not join the US in its attack on Huawei.

bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004cgm/panorama-can-we-trust-huawei sott.net/article/411221-Belgian-cybersecurity-agency-determines-there-are-no-security-threats-from-Huawei-tech

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 3
Created

So many security analysts can’t be wrong

Currently four members of the Five Eyes international intelligence alliance have blocked equipment made by Huawei (China’s telecom giant) from being used the their countries’ 5G networks citing national security concerns. Experts have claimed that China has demonstrated intent to steal information for many years, and have pointed out that, even though Huawei claims to have no ties to the government of China, Chinese law enables the state to compel people and possibly companies to assist them if they require. Professor of security engineering at the Cambridge University has stated that security concerns are centred around “the Chinese being in a position to run a big denial-of-service attack on Britain in the event of a time of international tension" [1]. This indicates in the intelligence community at least - China, through equipment manufactured in their country, represent a real threat to countries internationally.

[1] bbc.com/news/technology-46370014 bbc.com/news/business-46368001

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 3
Created

Industrial espionage - Chinese investment/patent stealing

The real threat with Chinese companies has been less of a surveillance issue and more a problem of investment in order to carry out patent and design theft. Several cases have been noted from Huawei to German Tiger tanks, leading many countries to veto Chinese investment; a similar situation with France led French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire to publicly claiming France is not open to looting. For the US this poses economic and surveillance risks, which explains their gusto, however restricting Chinese companies in this way may stifle economic growth and considering the wide-scale surveillance infrastructure of the US the answer to this question essentially remains who politically you believe to be a bigger threat to the world, China or the United States. Neither publicly claims to posses anything but good will however both are behind some shocking human rights violations and complex surveillance campaigns.

youtube.com/watch?v=bZh-CEgHaH4

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Jun 3
Created

US Tech Surveillance - The pot calling the kettle black

American mass surveillance has a long history, beginning with the tapping of telegraph communications carried out by the Cipher Bureau from 1919 onward. This surveillance campaign became more sophisticated over the next century, to the point at which a global telecommunication surveillance program was in place, run by the National Security Agency in America and the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance internationally, involving numerous international governments and telecommunications companies. Edward Snowden leaked classified information from the NSA in 2013, and is it is clear from these leaks that the NSA routinely intercepts American made networking equipment and implants backdoor surveillance tools in order to facilitate future surveillance by the NSA. However the United State’s concerns about Huawei are mostly based on the company’s “failure to cooperate” and “classified and unclassified information”, meaning there may indeed be Chinese surveillance programs, but they probably pale in comparison to the century old American campaign against global privacy.

theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
May 8
Created
Translate