Microsoft Asks For Actual Spying Evidence To Justify Blackballing Of Huawei
from the protectionism-is-the-new-black dept
We've repeatedly noted that while Huawei certainly engages in some clearly sketchy shit (like any good telecom company), the evidence supporting the global blacklist of the company has been lacking. The Trump administration still hasn't provided any evidence supporting the central justification for the global blackballing effort (that Huawei works for China to spy wholesale on Americans), and at least some of the effort is little more than protectionism driven by companies like Cisco, which don't want to compete with cheaper Chinese gear.
Again while Huawei does pose some legitimate security concerns, there's also little doubt that at a sizable chunk of this effort is just good old protectionism. Despite this, plenty of companies (like Google) have been happy to jump on the Huawei blackballing bandwagon. That hasn't been the case with Microsoft, which this week broke ranks and went so far as to call the Trump administration's attempt to blackball the company "un-American."
While clearly holding selfish motivations (Microsoft wants to be able to sell Huawei product), company President Brad Smith was quick (and correct) to point out that the Trump administration is incapable of providing actual evidence of Huawei's spying in the US:
"When Microsoft asked US lawmakers to explain the threat, they've been too vague for Smith's liking. Huawei is a major customer of his company: Its laptops come with Microsoft's Windows operating system. "Oftentimes, what we get in response is, 'Well, if you knew what we knew, you would agree with us'," Smith told Bloomberg. "And our answer is, 'Great, show us what you know so we can decide for ourselves. That's the way this country works.'"
The thing is, that's the response everybody gets when they pressure the Trump for actual evidence that Huawei spies on Americans. That includes the UK, which has also lamented a lack of solid spying evidence, while noting that most of Huawei's security issues (frequently the result of sloppy craftsmanship, not malice) can be addressed using common sense instead of harmful trade wars and blackballing.
The last time we went through this was in 2011, where similar protectionist sable rattling (again, well hyped by US networking gear competitors) led to an 18 month investigation into Huawei by the White House that discovered... nothing at all. And while it's certainly possible that Huawei has helped the Chinese government spy on Americans, actual public evidence is kind of important if you're going to engage in sweeping global blackballing policies impacting a massive chain of companies and ecosystems. If the shoe were on the other foot, there'd be no limit of US indiignation at the lack of supporting evidence.
The other problem of course is that the US isn't really in much of a position to lecture anybody on spying. Snowden docs revealed that the NSA (aka the United States) had broken into Huawei as early as 2007 in a bid to steal source code and covertly implant backdoors into Huawei products. Similarly you'll recall how the NSA was also busted intercepting Cisco hardware in transit, taking that gear to a special facility, then outfitting it with backdoors. That's before you even get to AT&T's role in international and domestic US surveillance, something routinely applauded as patriotic.
Pursuing the blackballing of Huawei without showing any evidence of actual spying sends two messages. One, that unethical behavior is only okay when the United States does it. And two, giant countries don't need to provide evidence when flinging accusations about if they just bury the data under ambiguous accusations of national security violations. Neither China nor Huawei are saints, but there are far better ways to go about shoring up US telecom security (like spending some of these calories on fixing the internet of broken things), assuming fixing telecom security is even the actual goal.
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: blackballing, china, evidence, trade wars
Companies: huawei, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe the real reason for the US government blackballing them is that Huawei products is that they're pissed the NSA had to break in instead of being given the keys to the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is precisely the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Slight Correction
Sable rattling would be like swinging a weasel around. Sabres are way more effective (but way less funny).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're a Zombie! -- Even your user name is "Rotz!" Ha, ha!
"You're a Gazelle!" or "Dog On a Teflon Floor" (the characteristic name change near all zombies make) has 35 comments in 6 and a half years, with a 42 month gap and a 22 month gap.
At least hundredth DEFINITE now with long gaps, name change, and pops up without mention ever gone.
ODD. Inexplicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're a Zombie! -- Even your user name is "Rotz!" Ha, ha!
I don't think you know what this word means.
There are many explanations for why one might comment here only a few times per year. They might only read it a few times per year. They might only wish to comment on very few articles and not deal with assholes like you that much.
And why would they mention being "gone"? It's not like they need to let you know where they've been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't feed the delusional troll spinning conspiracy theories, just flag and ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Don't feed the delusional troll spinning conspiracy theories, just flag and ignore."
Less that as it is Baghdad Bob/Blues trusty old attempts to marginalize anyone he feels doesn't agree with him. We could be charitable and assume he simply doesn't understand that some people have a Real Life and go on hiatus from the online environment, and others usually just read and rarely feel compelled to post...
But it's pretty much a tell when you look at the way he targets primarily those who most often call him on his latest bullshit. And ironic that he does it using one sock puppet after the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please remove head that is currently inserted in rectum
Talk about fact optional. Google did not jump on the anti Huawei. The fact is it became a censorable issue for tech companies to do business with Huawei. While it's true that Google didn't fight the issue like M$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please remove head that is currently inserted in rectum
Potato, Poe Tah Toh. The end result is exactly the same to everyone not directly involved with those companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please remove head that is currently inserted in rectum
The end result is not the same. Google did not go on a smear campaign as the above article implies with jumping oh the bandwagon. If Google had started to smear the firm, and blacklisted them, then the article would be correct. Whereas Google rolled over instead of fighting for one of their hardware venders/partner.
It's an ethical stand for actual facts that Karl routinely fails to adhere to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Following the money
Isn't the real question whether Huawei is spying for the Chinese government, or that Cisco is spying for the US government? By eliminating Huawei in the US it would leave Cisco as the only one spying from routers (that is outed spy's) and that's the way the US government wants it. The whole trade thingy is smoke and mirrors. So maybe the real question is who it the third party, open sourced software, firmware, and hardware network level router manufacturer that everyone should turn to?
Now as to Microsoft's position, they don't care who is spying on whom (as they spy on all their customers), they care about the cash flow from a major Chinese producer that might not be able to buy from Microsoft any more. That they care, one way or the other, about the spying would be contrary to investor's interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huawei as they don't even try to hide it. All those public monitoring and web censorship programs need circuit boards and software to run on. Asking for evidence might as well just be a recitation of public Chinese statements about their publicly admitted electronic monitoring programs. Additionally I do believe the Chinese raid trade secrets and conduct other espionage operations in the US as they have appear to be caught fairly often...
But Huawei on the entity list appears to be directly a result of allegations of Huawei IT networks in North Korea and Iran... definitely in violation of US sanctions and probably in violation of UN sanctions in the case of North Korea. Lazarus keeps raiding other countries central bank accounts... and other banks to fund North Korea WMD's. (see Bangladesh central bank theft... among others.)
But specifically I remember it happening about like this.
1.Obama negotiates a deal to lift nuclear sanctions on Iran but not lift terrorism sanctions on Iran. (This probably includes IT infrastructure as IT usually isn't terrorism) A security council resolution is passed to that effect which is technically illegal to violate except for a couple exceptions laid out in the UN charter.
2.Trump comes to office promising to withdraw from the Iran deal. To legally withdraw from the Iran deal it technically requires the repeal of the UN security council resolution, which would be vetoed by Russia or China... or withdraw from the United Nations. The exception to mandatory compliance (in theory because the majority of nations are violating at least one of those many many security council resolutions) is
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Trump could argue that Iran's previous actions against the United States, which they obviously did but may die denying that fact, justify his actions because sufficient "peace and security" hasn't been restored yet. (There's a reason the Iranian government has been referred to as the "death to America crowd" by at least one foreign ambassador they tried to assassinate.)
3.Trump did not argue this he just said we're withdrawing which leads most people to believe his actions are largely illegal.
4.Trump tries to convince other countries to reinstate the lifted sanctions on Iran.
5.Almost every other countries says no.
6.Trump has a Huawei executive arrested in Canada for bank fraud and intellectual property theft related breaking sanctions (bank fraud) by using US banks to help export US technology to Iran and stealing designs for a hand robot from T-mobile.
7.The other countries won't help enforce reinstated US sanctions against Iran and many promise to help Iran bypass US sanctions but our extradition treaty with Canada covers bank fraud.
8.Huawei goes on the entity list... not for breaking US sanctions on Iran, which other countries won't help enforce but for being a nebulous spying/national security threat.
9.Trump tries to convince other countries to sanction Huawei for being an espionage threat that is in no way related to Iran sanctions.
For Microsoft... it doesn't matter if they're on the entity list for being an espionage threat or for violating Iran sanctions because Microsoft has to abide Iran sanctions either way so I kind of see this as pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huawei
It's good to share your feelings on this. I'm sure your opinion will be a valid substitution for actual facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huawei
And yet GCHQ set up a lab specifically to test this claim, and so far they have found it to be false.
Are the Chinese spooks smarter than the British ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huawei
Yes because they didn't consider that it was a pretextual reason possibly only referring to 0 day flaws that Chinese agencies exploit that are found in nearly all software products at this point.
Also yes because the Chinese have a much larger recruiting pool than the British meaning they have more manpower and more leeway to weed out applicants of only average skill level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huaw
"Yes because they didn't consider that it was a pretextual reason possibly only referring to 0 day flaws that Chinese agencies exploit that are found in nearly all software products at this point."
False. As I recall what GHCQ investigated about the Huawei products was hardware and firmware. Nothing was found.
In the actual driver software any number of loopholes were found and no wonder since roughly 60% of routers have those thanks to crap proprietary software standards used by - as you so kindly note - almost every router available. There's a reason you can learn to hack a wifi AP from a one-page online manual using wireshark or whatever other FOSS packet sniffer takes your fancy.
The real reason Huawei was singled out as sanctionable is pretty easy. They were a competitive threat to the US domestic market in network hardware right after Cisco hit Trump up with a lobbying campaign at a time when trump was looking for any way to put the squeeze on chinese corporations.
I'm 100% sure the chinese aren't spying through huawei routers for one very basic reason - those routers would be in a very bad position to do so. Meaning the one reason for the sanctions with even a smidgeon of credibility is Huawei's ties to the chinese government and the fear that Huawei might at some point push a firmware update which DID incorporate a backdoor.
It's all pretty much a storm in a waterglass. Huawei and Cisco both make overpriced junk with insecure software so you'd really be better off just buying a cheap netgear router and flash it with openwrt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm 100% convinced that the Chinese spy through Huawei"
We eagerly await your actual proof, which appears to be missing from the rest of your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do I look like the DOJ... Look it up yourself on Google news like everyone else and/or the DOJ website or archives for china espionage convictions of US nationals in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look it up yourself on Google news
I tried to find some, but didn't find anything. I guess it doesn't exist, then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Look it up yourself on Google news"
So, you have no evidence? Someone with actual proof would be glad to share it. People who have nothing waste other peoples' time by telling them to go on a wild goose chase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, quit your job as an asshole techdirt troll and go to work for a prosecutors office prosecuting China. Or alternatively get a job with the requisite security clearances to look at the actual proof that was summarized in news articles and speeches by various government officials.
Afterward, violate the law by illegally bringing that evidence to the techdirt forum like an asshole before its presented at trial and get fired or go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, quit your job as an asshole techdirt troll and go to work for a prosecutors office prosecuting China.
So the person spouting baseless accusations is calling out polite requests for actual proof as asshatery?
How does that actually work in your mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, just out of curiosity how often to people send you real evidence when you demand it in a comment section?
For expample, have you ever demanded evidence related to a murder and someone used fedex to send you a bloody knife or a gun or something?
Also, if said evidence can actually be displayed in the comment section of techdirt because it's in the form of a video or some source code for a cyber attack, how would you attribute it to anyone reliably from this comment section?
I don't understand how your mind works if you find the demand for the production of evidence to be reasonable from a random techdirt commenter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's reasonable because without evidence, there's no reason to believe whatever assertion the comment contains. And furthermore, it's reasonable to ask the person making the claim to provide the evidence to back it up, rather than expecting everyone else to do the research for them. It's not a demand. You're quite free to ignore the request. Just understand that your claim will be accordingly dismissed as lacking any evidence. If you're fine with that, then there's no problem. You claim something, nobody believes you, and we all move on with our lives. The problem arises if you expect to be taken seriously without providing any evidence, but that's only a problem for you.
To turn this around the other way, if you don't think people making claims should provide the evidence to support them, how do you think it's supposed to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the biggest reason it's unreasonable in this context:
The timeline of that post goes over 6 years or more because the first agreements in negotations over Iran's nuclear program were reached in 2013 and I don't remember how long before that the negotiations started. That's longer than the world wars. If someone walked up to you and said "I demand evidence about WW1", well what about it?
Do they want like a 3 hour documentary of the events? Do they want a 1000 page book? Is there a specific aspect of world war one they are confused about or do they just demand evidence to prove every part of WW1 was documented accurately? How is that reasonable to deliver in the comments section on techdirt?
This is why the people demanding evidence in that fashion are trolls. It cannot be reasonably delivered in the techdirt comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I had just made a factual claim about WWI that would be perfectly expected. Nobody just came up to you and demanded something out of the blue.
No, they are not trolls, they are people applying Hitchens's razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Then just say that, and accept the fact that your claim is very likely to be dismissed as nothing more than opinion. If you cannot support your claim in the same forum that you made it, that is the appropriate outcome.
I ask again, since you didn't answer: how do you think it should work, if not by the people making claims having the burden of proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What claim do you have a question about?
In order to avoid a repeat of the other string here make sure its not my opinion being called a factual claim. Like me asserting Microsoft likely won't get very far has a factual basis because the President has broad authority over international trade that is subject to almost no oversight from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. But what the President will or will not do is just my opinion because that's obviously speculation about the future.
They appear to be trolls to me because they came in and read a list of historical events and demanded proof of something without narrowing down what aspect of those events they required proof of. This seems unreasonable.
They also did so in a way that looked like it was intended to belittle the person making the original post which made it disrespectful and trollish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't, I'm just explaining to you why you are being asked these questions and why this is exactly what you should expect.
Maybe next time (because there will be a next time) ask for clarification, instead of accusing them of being trolls.
If you think that was disrespectful and belittling, you must have had a very sheltered experience on the internet to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No evidence, no grasp on reality and providing a reason why nobody should believe any of your prior claims in a single post? Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well seeing that the original post clearly states that it is my opinion and my recollection of events...
Here you go "I attest that post outlines my opinion and recollection of events"
"I further attest that you should go copulate with a sharp, splintered wooden stick for being a troll who somehow believes people owe him something for learning to be rude on comment forums."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Here you go "I attest that post outlines my opinion and recollection of events""
Based on what evidence. I mean, I can see that's your opinion and all, but is it based on any documented fact?
Since your reaction to a request for that evidence is to name-call, make up random shit about people and tell people to back up your claims for you, I'll assume you're just spouting fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how easy that was? Next time just say "No, I don't have any evidence" and it will save a lot of time. It's perfectly fine to make a comment that shares your opinion and no need to bluster about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Okay, quit your job as an asshole techdirt troll and go to work for a prosecutors office prosecuting China."
So you are 100% positive china is using a series of routers for spying despite all evidence collected in a rigorous 18 month test carried out by US experts because why? You read it on the back of a cereal box? Voices in your head? Some guy in a bar with a MAGA hat had all the answers?
See, if you have a smidgeon of network knowledge you might state that Huawei's a crappy router because their software is insecure, just like 60% of the rest of the proprietary router firmware. You might make the call that not using a router where the company issuing firmware updates has tight ties to the chinese government is good security procedure.
But making the claim that China would waste it's time spying through routers which would never be trusted to handle sensitive information in the first place without ANY evidence or indication...now THAT is just paranoia. Hell, if China did do that it's more an indication that their spies are inept.
And no one needs to be a troll to question your assertions to the contrary in this case. They just need to ask where your certainty comes from, and the answer to that appears to be "faith".
And that's not an argument to be respected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to Huawei's larger product line. I think I remember reading they're one of the worlds largest smart phone makers and Google and Huawei were both complaining about Huawei losing parts of Android product support even if they still have access to the open source operating system. I also remember ArsTechnica reported that China was caught using a similar 0 day exploit for Android devices that Google's project 0 reported on about the iPhone recently. Given those 2 facts together it seems Huawei's Android devices were just as likely (or more likely since they were targeted at Uighur and Huawei is a Chinese company) as any other manufacturers Android devices to be subject to the exploits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I was referring to Huawei's larger product line"
Of course you were. Maybe you should provide context along with your evidence next time so that people know what you're talking about.
"I also remember ArsTechnica reported"
But you're too lazy to provide people with an actual link. Sorry, vaguely remembered articles are not evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I remember reading they're one of the worlds largest smart phone makers and Google and Huawei were both complaining about Huawei losing parts of Android product support even if they still have access to the open source operating system
I think I remember otherwise.
There, that's just as credible as the throwaway comment you generated.
Don't bother asking me to prove myself, I don't send "evidence" to a commenter who says he's not interested in sending "evidence" to prove what he says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I was referring to Huawei's larger product line. I think I remember reading they're one of the worlds largest smart phone makers..."
"I also remember ArsTechnica reported that China was caught using a similar 0 day exploit for Android devices that Google's project 0 reported on about the iPhone recently."
Those bits of information put together provides...absolutely nothing which isn't equally true (or more) for Samsung, Motorola, Xiaomi, HTC, etc etc.
A 0 day exploit hitting the latest android OS will equally well target everything running that OS - hence why Google keeps pushing patches.
Huawei was one of the OEM's actually carrying a line of "Android One"-branded phones, meaning the software running them was 100% Google and nothing else. After they got cut from google support due to sanctions - at THAT time the OS would start getting less and less secure since no security patches would be forthcoming.
No, whether it's Huawei's routers or the rest of their product line there is no evidence China will be listening other than the same suspicion aimed at...every other OEM not demonstrably proven NOT to be a state actor.
Trump's allegation were 100% pure unadulterated bullshit. The only security concern which was ever put out by the experts was that the router firmware of a Huawei could be updated at leisure by a company known to have close ties to the chinese government.
And that concern could and should have been addressed by NEVER running ANY router - whether Cisco or Huawei - on original software. If you want to use them for anything confidential...or just reliably without crashing...always flash the damn thing with Tomato or openwrt.
Does China consistently try to spy on western interests and keep up a steady barrage of cyberattacks and overflow exploits? Yes. Does any reasonable or effective vector of attack involve routers? No.
What the Trump administration have effectively given as reason for cockblocking Huwei is the equivalent of claiming that the dried figs the opposition is selling are stale and might be used in safecracking operations and antitank warfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof?
We don't need no stinkin' proof!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pride of capotalism, it aint.
Would it be good, bad to have a true capitalism??
Problems come when they Take over other countries, try to take over OUR country.
Take as much of a single product as possible and raise the Price 3-10-100 times because no one has enough to do much.
Export everything from a country, because you make more Exporting it, then when you want good, you IMPORT the goods back and the price is 10-100 time higher then if they were RESTRICTED to only selling in the USA..
And the national prices are HIGH, because if they werent, the other nations, would get a 3rd party to buy up the wood Cheaper, and send it to the other nation...
Then you get the Gov. to install a Import tax on the Closest nations, EVEN THO there is a trade agreement NOT TO..25% for wood from Canada..USA to canada and back gets Taxed. then passed onto the customer..
Want to lower prices in the USA.??
RESTRICT USA corps from export OUR Metals, wood, food...
OR
OPEN the market to any nations companies that Wish to sell into the USA.. THEIR PRICES.. No tax on Imported goods.
But our corps dont like that. They have raised the Cost and resale of Basic materials Higher then any other nation...Just cause we export most of everything..
Also we are in a recession..they wont tell you that, but after all the money PUT into our Economy, our money is worth less. And why the prices are so high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MS is the good guy here?
Christ. We really are in the end times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]