Congress: Fear Chinese Networking Companies! But Ignore That China Makes All Our Networking Equipment!
from the where's-the-smoking-gun? dept
For years, there have been reports or whispers about how Chinese networking giant, Huawei, might not be trustworthy. Specifically, people talked about how China might hide trojan horses in the equipment for economic espionage or even cyberattack reasons. These rumors got so loud that Huawei last year flat out told the US government to investigate it and come to its own conclusion. Well, the House Intelligence Committee has done exactly that... and Huawei is not pleased (pdf). Despite the investigation coming at its own request, with its promises to be as open as it could be, the report slams Huawei and another company ZTE, and basically says "don't trust these companies."Huawei has hit back hard, claiming that the report is "libel" and "utterly lacking in substance." They also note that it appears to just be political, calling it "an exercise in China-bashing and misguided protectionism." Indeed, some commentators are noting that this has all the indications of blatant protectionism, rather than a legitimate concern, with some pointing out that the Intelligence Committee seems to consistently ask Huawei to prove a negative and then bashes the company for failing.
But again and again, throughout the report, the pattern emerges: an allegation is made, Huawei denies it, without providing evidence deemed detailed enough to substantiate the denial, and the Committee is unimpressed.As that writeup notes, Huawei has not been found guilty, but is repeatedly asked to prove its innocence, and being unable to prove conclusively that it hasn't done anything, the Intelligence Committee insists that the threat is just too great.
It is, of course, quite possible that something nefarious is going on with Huawei and ZTE. But there doesn't appear to be any detals in the report that actually proves anything. Instead, it's all just baseless allegations, followed by Huawei (and ZTE) not providing enough details to convince investigators that they're innocent. Given Congress' history of grandstanding, this certainly raises some questions.
But... an even bigger issue is that the whole focus on Huawei may be kind of silly. Yes, it's a Chinese company, but as others have noted, basically all of our electronics products are made in China, and if that country really wanted to do something questionable, why not sneak in trojan horses there as well?
One fundamental failure of all this official hand-wringing is that it neglects the fact that many if not most of the components, with the exception of certain higher-value chips like those from Intel, are manufactured in China. Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks in the U.S., Alcatel-Lucent in France and Ericsson in Sweden, all use Chinese-made parts and carry out at least some portion of the final assembly of their equipment in China.Furthermore, that same report notes that, if this is just kicking off a trade war between the US and China over telco products, the US companies may get hurt a lot more than the Chinese:
Might China respond with its own restrictions against U.S. telecom firms like Cisco and Juniper? Is this the first shot of a telecom trade war? We’ll see.Yes, it's entirely possible that Huawei and ZTE are doing something bad -- but you'd think any report claiming that would have a lot more evidence than what's in this report. Of course, considering it's by the same FUD-spewing folks responsible for CISPA, perhaps we should get used to the fact that FUD without evidence is their standard operating procedure.
If that happens, expect Cisco to be hurt more than Huawei. U.S. sales account for only 4 percent of its overall revenue, whereas Cisco’s operations in Asia, the Pacific Rim and China account for more than 16 percent, and China was its second fastest-growing market in that region after Japan.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, congress, cybersecurity, espionage, house intelligence committee, mike rogers, protectionism
Companies: huawei, zte
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This can do more harm to the US than it can to China, just by creating trade tension. How does anyone in these committees remain there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huawei has it. He is not alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, it worked REALLY well for that senator Joseph McCarthy and his house panel's communist witch hunts! And EVERYONE agrees that all those people got fair 'trials', and that 100% of the people Joseph McCarthy called before his House of Unamerican activities committee were guilty of being evil communists trying to undermine American Capitalism!
After all, what's the worst that can happen? A few hundred thousand people get their lives ruined for something they weren't guilty of? That sounds pretty low to me considering there's over 300 million people living in the country who could be 'harmed' by Huawei & those evil communists McCarthy was after!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The dragon never sleeps and is constantly looking for opportunities to gain an advantage. You had best wake up and smell the coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The issue with McCarthy and his tactics is that when he and his committee accused you, you were automatically guilty. There was no trial, no ability to defend yourself. You were guilty by accusation. The worst part is that, once called before the committee, you were asked to prove the negative. No "proof" of your guilt was presented except the accusation. Then you had to prove the accusation was not true. There was no evidence to contest, no witnesses to cross-examine. Just an open accusation that you were guilty. The childhood reply of "nah ah" did not work either. Using the obvious counter of "No I'm Not" didn't work either. How do you "prove" your not something that you were accused of? What proof can you present? How do you contest the evidense against you when there are none? The accusation with a few words were enough to make you guilty but nothing you said was enough to make you innocent.
This is similar to a man being asked the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". If you answer "yes", then you implicitly agree that there was wife beating going on and that you have stopped that activity. If you answer "no", they implicitly you have agreed that there was wife beating going on and that it has not stopped.
In this case, the company was accused, allowed for an investigation, and as a result of the investigation they were declared bad because. No evidence of any wrongdoing was collected, the investigators "Just Knew" that something bad was going on. So, how to "prove" that nothing bad is going on. Well the first step is to have some evidense of what the "bad thing" was. Show some evidense that they are doing a "bad thing". Find at least one piece of equipment that they did a "bad thing" on (and prove that they did it either by proof that they put on a bad update or something).
If McCarthy said "you are bad". Then by accusation you were bad. No proof was required. No evidence was presented that could be contested or proven false. The fact that an accusation was made, was by default a guilty verdict. Since the committee could not find anything that it could show as evidence that Huawei did anything wrong we should just accept that there bad anyway, just because. That is very dangerous ground. That kind of power always goes to a person's head that anybody they accuse is automatically guilty.
The system in the US is supposed to be the presentation of the evidence of guilt in an adversarial hearing with the ability to present counter evidence of innocense. NOT a guilty by accusation system. That system is EXTREMELY open to abuse and mistakes. Even the best "good" person can be swayed or misled when there is no need for valid legal proof of guilt, just an accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please do your research before stating something like "If that happens, expect Cisco to be hurt more than Huawei."
Soon as they are able to, the Chinese will likely prohibit Cisco, et. al. from selling into the "biggest market the world has ever seen".
If China is such a Big-Market, why does every body clamor to get access to the US market? Including China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On a related note, this is much of the reason behind the US government's scaremongering about China. If China's Yuan (or any other country's currency) were to emerge as a replacement for the US dollar in international trade, it could be disastrous for the US economy--if no one wants to buy dollars, the US can no longer cover such huge budget deficits with currency sales (we need more money? print it and sell it overseas)--massive economic meltdown in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it has a large market, but that means nothing when 47% of the people are classified as poor, i.e receiving benefits to help them live.
So in reality the market is only around 150 million not 300 million which is not that big if you look at Asian countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to marvel at the US hypocrisy here and any idiots who defend it. The US government are criticising Chinese companies for their links to the Chinese government when the big US companies have the US government in their back pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Washington is a Cesspool ! The House Committee is a joke.Just go look over that House Committee on Science and Tech that has numerous assholes like Todd Akin sitting in.Guys who do not understand science but they sit and make decisions on it.
Two Fingers In The Air at the US Government !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anything America has been proven to install back-doors in software, just look at what has been happening in Iran as a clear example. Now they are accusing others of doing the same thing without proof. This could come back to haunt the American economy in the very near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new "Call to Arms"
It's easier to "see" chinese pirates, they look different. It's much easier to go after a 'made-up' enemy that anybody can tell from the "us". It makes it easy to point out "us" versus "them". "They" can be picked out in any crowd. Just watch, soon we'll start having the "Chinese" concentration camps just the US used to have the concentration/internment camps to round up the Japanese starting in 1942. Where is McCarthy when you need him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The new "Call to Arms"
Yeah, Chinese pirates are easy to spot because their ships are Junk.
/rimshot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More likely:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples to oranges?
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the 16% includes Asia, Pacific Rim, and China? Why not just China? After all, the idea is that China puts in place protectionist policies against Cisco...but can such policies affect other sovereign nations besides China?
That quote above seems very suspect, like someone wanted to exaggerate the danger to Cisco in order to make a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples to oranges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apples to oranges?
I asked why we are comparing
1) Huawei's revenue in the US
2) Cisco's revenue in Asia, Pacific Rim, and China
This appears to be an apples to oranges comparison. A true apples to apples comparison would be Huawei's US revenue to Cisco's China revenue. Why muddy the waters by throwing in Asia/Pacific Rim, unless the author of that statement was intentionally trying to create a misleading impression?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US is just trying to do the same to Chinese companies...
Don't fool yourself, there is already a Trade war between the US and China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Give Them Ideas
This is going to backfire on us big time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Huawei Stealing More Than Data?
Propaganda does not only originate from outside and against the US. Some of it actually starts here in the states. Propaganda can operate in opposite directions. Propaganda doesn�t have to be true to be believed.
The US, we�re told, appears to be behind in telecommunication technology, which is currently one of the most sought after luxuries/staples Americans want. Why would the US government want a known Chinese subsidized company that is deployed in over 140 countries to gain a foothold in the richest telecommunications market in the world?
The answer is- It doesn�t!
Why would a Chinese company that currently serves more than 500 operators and over one third of the world�s population risk reputation and retaliation by stealing US government intelligence data, which you�d think should be separable?
The answer is- It wouldn�t!
Why would a company who last year had $32.2 billion in revenues and is reportedly wholly owned by it�s more than 65,000 employees bet the house by tainting its name and participating in an international scandal?
The answer is- It won�t!
Call me increasingly suspicious about US politicians and their motives, but a bigger question that comes to my mind is why are House Intelligence Committee�s chairman, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, and Maryland Democrat C.A. �Dutch� Ruppersberger so bent on convincing the American public �that Huawei is somehow uniquely vulnerable to cyber mischief and ignore technical and commercial realities�? The report goes on to say �They (Huawei) recklessly threaten American jobs and innovation, do nothing to protect national security, and should be exposed as dangerous political distractions.�
I�m not advocating allowing a foreign threat to gain hold of of our telecommunications infrastructure. I am questioning the means by which it�s served to the American public. The US is not in the position to lose more jobs offshore. Yet this seems to be a trait of protectionism and America is unwilling to play fair whenever it finds itself losing the ability to compete with another country.
Your ears don�t perk up when a state representative named �Dutch� starts denouncing an eastern company in favor of Scandinavian based Ericsson? It seems Mr. Ruppersberger believes �one of the main reasons we are having this investigation is to educate the citizens in business in the United States Of America�. Thank you for that bit of business wisdom representative Ruppersberger.
And another observation. With who and what part of the world is �Dutch� hanging out with by using analogies like �in the telecommunications world, once you get the camel�s nose in the tent, you can go anywhere�?
I�m sorry but something just doesn�t add up to me here. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I believe there�s more to it than the American public is being told. Sometimes propaganda is a two way street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Huawei Stealing More Than Data?
How is the US gov acting like they want to protect domestic jobs, all the while companies like Apple, IBM and so many others continually exploit other countries' workforces? Those are jobs which technically could be done here, it's just that the fat-cat CEOs wouldn't get quite as big of a bonus. If the government was truly concerned about sustained economic growth and security issues, they'd start by bringing critical jobs back, e.g. reopen the steel factories.
It's crazy to spread fear about a Chinese networking giant stealing critical jobs and potentially syphoning critical data when we've allowed ourselves to become dependent upon foreign countries' materials and manufacturing. (Remember when products were made in the USA, when stuff actually fuctioned beyond a few years?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*puts on tin foil hat*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only thing I fear from China is that someday they will wise up and cut the USA off and that is something we cannot afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huawei CANNOT BE TRUSTED
LTE is entirely IP. You can test all you want and find nothing today.
The one thing tests will not find is what future software migrations and upgrades may bring or trigger. No testing in the world can find this. Logistically impossible to implement testing insitu.
The fundamental question is can you trust a China company with your Core? Answer: NO.
Most of the Tier-1 carriers have significant government enterprise business and the risk of installing Huawei "Cores" is like giving the Navy's Carrier Nimitz to China and asking China to provide maintenance and other logistical services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it has a large market, but that means nothing when 47% of the people are classified as poor, i.e receiving benefits to help them live.
So in reality the market is only around 150 million not 300 million which is not that big if you look at Asian countries. cisco-linksys-wireless-n-internet-home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]