US Falls Out Of Top 10 Fastest Broadband Speeds

from the good-job,-everybody dept

For all of the talk about being #1, America's broadband networks are routinely mediocre. The U.S. consistently ranks among the middle of the pack in speeds and overall availability, while Americans continue to pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for both fixed and mobile broadband. The reasons aren't mysterious: we've let a bunch of telecom monopolies not only dominate the sector, we've allowed their corrupt influence over state and federal lawmakers and regulators to become so pronounced, they dictate most US telecom policy and literally write the law. Both with a relentless focus on hamstringing competition.

We then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces, wondering what went wrong. Rinse, wash, repeat.

This week, the US had the honor of falling out of the top ten nations in terms of average broadband speeds. The data, gleaned from Speedtest.net's Global Index, indicates that the United States is now 11th, behind behind Macau, Denmark, and Sweden. Not a great showing given the countless billions in subsidies thrown at providers to shore up coverage, and the endless lip service (see: FCC boss Ajit Pai's breathless supposed dedication to curing the digital divide) US policy makers have thrown at the problem for the better part of the last twenty years.

Historically, we adore blaming our failures on this front on things like geography, insisting the only reason the United States is so mediocre at broadband is because it's just so big. But after decades of mediocrity, and billions in monopoly tax breaks and subsidization, that excuse long ago became hollow. Especially when you notice that the US is now ranked 33rd in average mobile download speeds, behind even larger countries like China:

"What’s most worrisome about Speedtest’s latest global index is that while the U.S. still ranks in the top 15 for broadband speeds, it ranks just 33rd at 43.7 Mbps when it comes to mobile data. That’s a pretty weak showing compared to similarly sized countries like China (84.9 Mbps), Canada (73.52 Mbps), and Australia (62.15 Mbps) which all rank in the top 10 for mobile data, with South Korea taking the top spot at 88 Mbps."

Keep in mind that Speedtest data has largely been criticized for being overly generous, so it's very likely that US rankings are even worse. These rankings also don't address the other primary result of muted competition and rampant state and federal corruption: sky high prices.

For decades now, the US telecom industry has employed an entire cottage industry of PR firms, lobbyists, think tankers, consultants, and others, all dedicated to trying to downplaying or ignoring our national broadband mediocrity. It's a segment of folks that has grown even louder during the pandemic, as they try to explain away the fact that some 44 million Americans still lack access to any broadband whatsoever and millions more still can't afford service.

The reality is that US broadband is largely dominated by widely despised cable monopolies, and widely despised phone companies that can't be bothered to repair or upgrade their networks. And they don't try very hard because they don't face any competition, and they've effectively bribed the lion's share of Congress and regulators into feckless obedience. Instead of embracing policies that encourage smaller competitors, we routinely neuter regulators at the behest of AT&T and Comcast. About the only thing we're truly good at here is going out of our way to pretend this isn't a problem.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, prices, speeds, us

Beware Of Op/Eds Falsely Claiming The US Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because Lobbyists Neutered The FCC

from the willful-delusion dept

In recent weeks, the telecom sector and FCC allies have been busy trying to claim that the only reason the US internet still works is because the FCC killed net neutrality rules in 2017. That repeal, you'll recall, not only killed net neutrality protections, but the FCC's ability to hold giant telecom monopolies responsible for pretty much anything, be it obvious billing fraud or kicking disabled people offline during a crisis.

The pandemic has been making it very clear that might not have been a great idea. It has also brought renewed attention to the fact that 42 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever despite the US having thrown endless billions at US telecom monopolies. There are millions more who can't afford service because captured regulators have intentionally turned a blind eye to monopoly domination of the sector and the lack of competition, high prices, and terrible customer service that routinely results.

To try and shift the focus away from, you know, reality... this new bumbling telecom-backed PR campaign has tried to change the subject. Namely, by insisting the only reason the US internet is working at all is because of our mindless, repeated pandering to telecom lobbyists. It's a missive that keeps popping up around the telecom policy ecosystem, including the AEI, Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioners, and the FCC General Counsel:

Like most telecom industry PR efforts, the narrative was then shoveled to various paper op/ed sections via industry allies. Last week, it was USAToday's turn to run a factually-dubious editorial claiming that the only reason US broadband works during quarantine is because the Trump FCC kissed the ass of telecom giants:

"For most of the past 25 years, the United States has strategically minimized regulatory interference in a sector of the economy that empowers innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers. This light-touch regulatory environment has encouraged private companies to invest tens of billions of dollars in building the internet’s superstructure while opening the doors to innovators and entrepreneurs."

There's nothing in this paragraph that's actually true. And when's the last time you saw AT&T or Comcast do much of anything to "empower innovators or consumers?" That's not what these companies do, and these editorials always originate from a false premise: that US broadband is some kind of amazing success story, and you just didn't notice.

For one, the telecom market has never been a "free market." It's an increasingly deregulated pile of regional telecom monopolies that all but own state and federal government due to regulatory capture. They don't try particularly hard to compete on price, upgrade their networks, improve shaky customer service, or expand broadband to rural or less affluent areas because there's no competition driving such efforts, and most local, state, and federal lawmakers are in their pockets (ensuring the regulatory and cost burdens to upstart competitors remains high).

The end result of this is obvious: the US routinely ranks in the middle of the pack in nearly every broadband metric that matters, while US consumers pay some of the highest prices in the world. There's an entire chorus of folks employed by the telecom sector to try and pretend this isn't true.

The article's headline -- "Virus shows internet is too important for government to run" -- also ignores the fact that many communities have built some of the most popular and fastest broadband networks on the backs of apathy at market failure. And like several previous op/eds of this ilk, the author tries to claim that the pandemic has crushed European networks (completely false), but not US networks (false) because deregulation has triggered a massive wave in US investment (guess what: false) not seen in Europe:

"Unlike here, European networks are more heavily regulated. This has led to less investment and worse performance for consumers for years. American consumers are being generally well served by the private sector. Hundreds of service providers have signed up for the FCC’s COVID-19 pledge related to retail practices and prices. Wireless providers are giving out more data and the use of more hotspots for free."

You mean that entirely voluntary pledge that big ISPs are ignoring because they know the FCC just eliminated its authority to do anything about it? Again, the US internet has held up generally well, but it's largely thanks to smart engineers and well designed core transit routes used to handling massive events like the Superbowl. Out at the "last mile" of the network, where many Americans are still stuck on 5Mbps DSL lines from 2003, the results have been less impressive. Less impressive still are the sky high prices Americans pay for service, something industry apologists will literally never mention in the hopes of making the fact go away.

Lawmakers, economists, think tankers, and others loyal to companies like AT&T and Comcast repeatedly ignore hard data in a bid to strip away consumer protections, claiming this leads to miraculous outcomes that never arrive. It's an incredible 30 year history of delusion that never results in the projected and promised outcomes. Yet like some purgatorial version of Charlie Brown and Lucy football, we keep repeating the same mistakes and parroting the same delusions, certain that this time, pandering to telecom monopolies will surely drive the fast, cheap networks we were all promised 30 years ago.

This kind of circular, rose-colored glasses policy has long ensured US broadband remains mired in mediocrity. But using a pandemic to prop up and justify this obvious dysfunction is a particularly new and grotesque touch. There's a reason the telecom industry and its allies are pushing this nonsense, and it's to try and distract you from the fact that a generation of pandering to telecom monopolies has resulted in patchy, expensive broadband networks at a time when reliable, affordable connectivity is more important than ever.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, eu, fcc, net neutrality, oversight, pandemic, us

Documents Show NSO Group Is Pitching Its Malware To US Local Law Enforcement Agencies

from the get-in-bed-with-the-UAE,-locals dept

Infamous Israeli malware developer NSO Group is currently being sued by Facebook for using WhatsApp as its preferred attack vector. Malicious links and malware payloads are sent to targets, allowing government agencies -- including those in countries with horrendous human rights records -- to intercept communications and otherwise exploit compromised phones.

NSO has argued it can't be sued for the things done by its customers, all of which appear to be government agencies. The company says those actions are protected by sovereign immunity. NSO insists it only sells the malware. It does not assist its customers with target acquisition or malware deployment. Documents filed by Facebook say otherwise. NSO appears to deploy malware through servers it owns or rents in the United States, suggesting it is actually more involved in its customers' actions than it has sworn in court.

Like any business, NSO Group wants more customers. It's not content to sell exploits to questionable governments that have used its offerings to target journalists, lawyers, activists, and dissidents. It wants to do business in the United States, where there are thousands of potential law enforcement customers.

Some details of NSO's stateside push emerged a few years ago, when reports showed the DEA had met with NSO to discuss its offerings. Motherboard has obtained additional documents indicating NSO is courting local law enforcement as well.

NSO Group, the surveillance vendor best known for selling hacking technology to authoritarian governments, including Saudi Arabia, also tried to sell its products to local U.S. police, according to documents obtained by Motherboard.

[...]

"Turn your target's smartphone into an intelligence gold mine," a brochure for the hacking product, called Phantom, reads. The brochure was made by Westbridge Technologies, "the North American branch of NSO Group," it says. Motherboard obtained the document and related emails through a public records act request.

"Phantom" is just US branding for NSO's "Pegasus" -- the hacking tool sold to foreign governments that's at the center of Facebook's lawsuit. According to the marketing documents sent to the San Diego Police Department, Phantom turns targeted phones into a steady stream of intercepted communications. The software allows police to grab emails, text messages, contact lists, track the device's location, and surreptitiously activate the phone's camera and microphone. Once a phone is compromised, encryption is no longer a problem, as NSO's sales materials point out.

Pitching a tool this powerful to the San Diego PD had a predictable response:

After talking to the company in a phone call, SDPD Sergeant David Meyer told Westbridge in an email that the hacking system "sounds awesome."

The PD's statement says the department is always looking at products that could aid them in investigations. But as tempting as this one was, it was out of the PD's price range.

In his email, Sergeant Meyer added, "we simply do not have the kind of funds to move forward on such a large scale project."

That the NSO Group is seeking US law enforcement customers isn't a surprise. But the nation's police agencies should try to be selective about who they purchase from. NSO has sold malware to serial human rights abusers and one would hope US agencies would voluntarily choose not to buy from a company with such shady clientele. Unfortunately, this single sampling of law enforcement documents shows at least one cop shop showed interest in buying what NSO was selling, and was only held back by budgetary constraints.

Filed Under: hacking, law enforcement, police, spyware, us
Companies: nso group

COVID-19 Is Exposing A Virulent Strain Of Broadband Market Failure Denialism

from the ill-communication dept

A few weeks ago, the US telecom industry began pushing a bullshit narrative through its usual allies. In short, the claim revolves around the argument that the only reason the US internet still works during a pandemic was because the Trump FCC ignored the public, ignored most objective experts, and gutted itself at the behest of telecom industry lobbyists. The argument first popped up over at AEI, then the Trump FCC, then the pages of the Wall Street Journal, and has since been seen in numerous op-eds nationwide. I'd wager that's not a coincidence, and I'd also wager we'll be seeing a lot more of them.

All of the pieces try to argue that the only reason the US internet works during a pandemic is because the FCC gutted its authority over telecom as part of its "restoring internet freedom" net neutrality repeal. This repeal, the story goes, drove significant investment in US broadband networks (not remotely true), resulting in telecom Utopia (also not true). The argument also posits that in Europe, where regulators have generally taken a more active role in policing things like industry consolidation and telecom monopolies, the internet all but fell apart (guess what: not true).

Usually, like in this op-ed, there's ample insistence that the US broadband sector is largely wonderful while the EU has gone to hell:

"Unlike here, European networks are more heavily regulated. This has led to less investment and worse performance for consumers for years. American consumers are being generally well served by the private sector."

Anybody who has spent five minutes talking to Comcast customer support -- or tried to get scandal-plagued ISP like Frontier Communications to upgrade rotten DSL lines -- knows this is bullshit. Still, we penned a lengthy post exploring just how full of shit this argument is, and how there's absolutely zero supporting evidence for the claims. The entire house of cards is built on fluff and nonsense, and it's just ethically grotesque to use a disaster to help justify regulatory capture and market failure.

While it's true that the US internet, in general, has held up relatively well during a pandemic, the same can't be said of the so called "last mile," or the link from your ISP's network to your home. Yes, the core internet and most primary transit routes, designed to handle massive capacity spikes during events like the Superbowl, has handled the load relatively well. The problem, as Sascha Meinrath correctly notes here, is sluggish speeds on consumer and business lines that, for many, haven't been upgraded in years:

"Right now, an international consortium of network scientists is collecting 750,000 U.S. broadband speed tests from internet service provider (ISP) customers each day, and we’ve been tracking a stunning loss of connectivity speeds to people’s homes. According to most ISPs, the core network is handling the extra load. But our data show that the last-mile network infrastructure appears to be falling down on the job."

Again, your 5 Mbps DSL line might be ok during normal times, but it's not going to serve you well during a pandemic when your entire family is streaming 4K videos, gaming, and Zooming. And your DSL line isn't upgraded because there's (1) very little competition forcing your ISP to do so, and (2) the US government is filled to the brim with sycophants who prioritize campaign contributions and ISP revenues over the health of the market and consumer welfare. And while there's a contingency of industry-linked folks who try very hard to pretend otherwise, this is a policy failure that's directly tied to mindless deregulation, a lack of competition, and, more importantly, corruption. In short, the complete opposite of the industry's latest talking point.

For years we've been noting how US telcos have refused to repair or upgrade aging DSL lines because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. Facing no competition and no regulatory oversight, there's zero incentive for a giant US broadband provider to try very hard. Similarly, because our lawmakers and regulators are largely of the captured, revolving door variety, they rubber stamp shitty mergers, turn a blind eye to very obvious industry problems, routinely throwing billions in taxpayer money at monopolies in exchange for fiber networks that are usually only partially deployed -- if they're deployed at all.

Meanwhile, US telcos that have all but given up on upgrading aging DSL lines have helped cement an even bigger Comcast monopoly across vast swaths of America. It's a problem that the telecom sector, Trump FCC, and various industry apologists will ignore to almost comical effect. Also ignored is the fact that this results in US broadband subscribers paying some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world:

"Numerous studies, including those conducted by the FCC itself, show that broadband pricing is the second-largest barrier to broadband adoption (availability is the first). It’s obvious that if people are being charged a lot for a service, they’re less likely to purchase it. And independent researchers have already documented that poor areas often pay more than rich communities for connectivity. Redlining of minority and rural areas appears to be widespread, and we need accurate pricing data from the FCC to meaningfully address these disparities."

Try to find any instance where Ajit Pai, or anybody in this chorus of telecom monopoly apologists, actually admits that the US broadband market isn't competitive and, as a result, is hugely expensive for businesses and consumers alike. You simply won't find it. What you will find are a lot of excuses and straw men arguments like this latest one, designed to distract the press, public, and policymakers from very obvious market failure. Market failure that was a major problem in normal times, and exponentially more so during a pandemic where broadband is an essential lifeline.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, congestion, covid-19, eu, failures, fcc, market failure, regulation, us

Insane: China Expels American Journalists In Ridiculous, Unhelpful Spat About Covid-19

from the stop-this-nonsense dept

There has been some absolutely ridiculous sniping between the Chinese government and the US government over "blame" for Covid-19. For idiotic reasons, President Trump and his sycophantic followers started referring to Covid-19 as "The Chinese Virus," a racist term that hints at putting blame on Chinese people for the virus or even implying that those of Chinese ancestry are more risky than others. The administration also stupidly limited the number of Chinese staffers allowed at the US bureaus of Chinese news organizations, partly in response to China expelling three Wall Street Journal reporters over a headline it didn't like.

The Chinese government responded in an even more idiotic manner, trying to blame Americans for the disease.

China’s state media have been equally involved in spreading skepticism of the virus’s origin. Official Communist Party publication Xinhua has published several articles questioning COVID-19’s provenance, and the state-run Global Times wrote, “As the U.S. COVID-19 situation becomes increasingly obscure, the Chinese public shares the suspicion raised by Zhao Lijian that the U.S. might be the source of the virus and that the U.S. is subject [to] questioning and is obliged to explain [its role to] the world.”

And the latest move is that China has now expelled American journalists working for the three big US newspapers: The NY Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. No matter what you think of the journalism done by any of these news organizations, and no matter what you think of the way either the US or Chinese governments have been handling the crisis, this is very, very bad.

We're at a point right now where it is more important than ever that there be open information and open communication about what is happening around the globe regarding Covid-19, and making sure that everyone has as accurate information as possible. Expelling journalists from either China or the US is extraordinarily short sighted and dangerous at this moment. The Chinese and American governments should set aside their petty spats for now. They can always pick it up back later when the world is not in so much peril (though, frankly, we'd be a lot better off if we stopped with all the pettiness between countries).

Filed Under: china, covid-19, expelled, journalists, us
Companies: ny times, wall street journal, washington post, wsj

Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico

from the precedent-controls-bullets-right-up-until-they-cross-an-imaginary-line dept

Border Patrol agents kill a lot of people, most of them citizens of another country. For years, agents have been able to open fire on people in moving vehicles and [checks Congressional report] people throwing rocks at them. New guidelines were handed down by the agency in 2014 following an outside investigation of the Border Patrol's use of force. The investigation contained many recommendations that could have resulted in fewer killings, but the Border Patrol rejected the conclusions and the suggested fixes.

So, the killings continue. And not much is being done to stop them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stripped qualified immunity from a Border Patrol agent who fired at leaast 16 bullets across the border at a 16-year-old resident who was allegedly throwing rocks at him. Ten of them hit the teen, killing him. The court ruled this was basically murder, something clearly not covered by qualified immunity. The Fourth Amendment governs what US government employees do. It makes no difference that the victim was not a US citizen.

That finding is likely to be struck down if it makes its way to the Supreme Court. A similar case involving the killing of Mexican resident by a Border Patrol agent standing on US soil has just received the Supreme Court stamp of approval.

Fifteen-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca was shot and killed by Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. as he played with friends in a culvert along the US-Mexico border. According to Hernandez's survivors, he and his friends were running back and forth across the culvert to touch the US border fence before running back to the Mexican side of the culvert. Agent Mesa claimed the teen was "involved in an illegal border crossing attempt" and "pelting" him with rocks.

The shooting resulted in an international incident. The Mexican government wanted the agent extradited to face murder charges in Mexico, the country where the murder occurred, even if the bullets originated on the US side of the border. The US government, on the other hand, decided Agent Mesa had done nothing wrong - that his deadly actions were clearly justified by the presence of rocks and/or border-crossing attempts.

Hernandez's parents sued. The Fifth Circuit took two swings at the case (once at the Supreme Court's request) and both times refused to extend the scope of Bivens to cover an incident where a government agent on the US side of the border shot and killed someone on the other side.

The Supreme Court likewise has refused to read Bivens as supporting a lawsuit against US government employees on behalf of a citizen of a foreign country. The Supreme Court believes doing so would upset the delicate balance currently preserved by Mexican outrage and US government indifference. From the ruling [PDF]:

Both the United States and Mexico have legitimate and important interests that may be affected by the way in which this matter is handled. The United States has an interest in ensuring that agents assigned the difficult and important task of policing the border are held to standards and judged by procedures that satisfy United States law and do not undermine the agents’ effectiveness and morale. Mexico has an interest in exercising sovereignty over its territory and in protecting and obtaining justice for its nationals. It is not our task to arbitrate between them.

This sounds positively Solomonic until you read the next paragraph of the ruling, along with some context that isn't discussed in the ruling.

In the absence of judicial intervention, the United States and Mexico would attempt to reconcile their interests through diplomacy––and that has occurred. The broad issue of violence along the border, the occurrence of cross-border shootings, and this particular matter have been addressed through diplomatic channels. In 2014, Mexico and the United States established a joint Border Violence Prevention Council, and the two countries have addressed cross-border shootings through the United States-Mexico bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Following the Justice Department investigation in the present case, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to “work with the Mexican government within existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future incidents.”

That 2014 date is key. That's the same year the Border Patrol was given new use-of-force guidelines while simultaneously rejecting the findings of an outside investigation that said agents used their weapons far too often in situations that either didn't require deadly force (rock throwing) or created new dangers (shooting at moving vehicles). The US government also cleared Agent Mesa of any wrongdoing, which suggests it has zero desire to hold its own people accountable for extrajudicial killings of foreign citizens -- something that can be easily accomplished by firing bullets from the US side of the border into Mexico.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court recommends trying not to get shot on the wrong side of the border.

Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside U. S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is available only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Congress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch officials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either.

The 5-4 majority says too much is at stake in terms of border security and international relations to come to any other conclusion. Since it's not going to legislate from the bench, US government employees can kill people in other countries without fear of being held personally responsible for their rights violations until Congress steps in -- something it's obviously in no hurry to do.

The concurrence, written by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, is mainly annoyed the Court wasted time discussing a Congressionally-created escape hatch for federal officers and suggests tossing the Bivens doctrine altogether, further limiting lawsuits brought against federal officers/agents for Constitutional violations.

The dissent, however, points out this isn't an extension of Bivens across the border. While Hernandez may have died in Mexico, the bullets were fired by an officer on United States soil.

Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plaintiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. foreign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the application of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders.

Even the government concurred a Bivens action could be brought against Agent Mesa if one key element had been satisfied.

The complaint states that Mesa engaged in that very conduct; it alleged, specifically, that Hernández was unarmed and posed no threat to Mesa or others. For these reasons, as Mesa acknowledged at oral argument, Hernández’s parents could have maintained a Bivens action had the bullet hit Hernández while he was running up or down the United States side of the embankment.

"Wrong place, wrong time" shouldn't be the determining factor.

The only salient difference here: the fortuity that the bullet happened to strike Hernández on the Mexican side of the embankment. But Hernández’s location at the precise moment the bullet landed should not matter one whit.

[...]

Mesa’s allegedly unwarranted deployment of deadly force occurred on United States soil. It scarcely makes sense for a remedy trained on deterring rogue officer conduct to turn upon a happenstance subsequent to the conduct—a bullet landing in one half of a culvert, not the other.

If Bivens is neutered, there's nothing left for plaintiffs. And the agency benefitting from this already does next to nothing to deter misconduct by its agents.

Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated incident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing individuals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal decisions, no action was taken.

Zero accountability, blessed by two government branches. Here's the third branch doing the same thing. The message it sends is this: if you're going to kill a Mexican citizen, make sure they're still in Mexico. And that message means the case coming up from the Ninth Circuit is going to give another Border Patrol agent a free pass on taking a foreigner's life.

Filed Under: bivens, borders, cbp, jurisdiction, mexico, shooting, sovereignty, supreme court, us

US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying

from the ill-communication dept

We've noted a few times now how US claims that Huawei routinely spies on Americans haven't been supported much in the way of actual public evidence, a bit of a problem given that's the primary justification for the country's global blackballing efforts. Previous White House investigations 18 months in length couldn't find evidence of said spying, and many US companies have a history of ginning up security fears simply because they don't want to compete with cheaper Chinese kit.

The US has been making its blacklisting case for much of the last year, but had been criticized previously by Germany and the UK for being a bit light on actual evidence. That shifted slightly this week courtesy of a report in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled, here are Ars Technica and Gizmodo alternatives), which quoted US National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien as saying the US has hard evidence that Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks around the world:

"We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world."

Again, this is a step up from previous US claims that it didn't actually need to provide public evidence to justify a massive global blackballing effort that's been debated and discussed for more than a decade:

"The US kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the UK and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the US, which in the past had argued that it didn't need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations' security."

US officials quoted in the piece say they've known about the backdoors "since observing it in 2009 in early 4G equipment," though officials declined to say whether the US has actually observed Huawei using this access. The Journal notes how telecom operators are required by law to build backdoors for authorities to access the networks "for lawful purposes," but they "are also required to build equipment in such a way that the manufacturer can't get access without the consent of the network operator," restrictions the US claims Huawei is violating in several countries:

"US officials say Huawei has built equipment that secretly preserves the manufacturer's ability to access networks through these interfaces without the carriers' knowledge. The officials didn't provide details of where they believe Huawei is able [to] access networks. Other manufacturers don't have the same ability, they said."

Still, some were quick to note that claims of evidence isn't the same as public evidence, while some infosec reporters lamented the report for being a bit vague:

Again, there are certainly plenty of valid security concerns about both China and Huawei. Huawei is certainly no saint, and like so many telecom giants has some truly grotesque and greasy habits. But a healthy chunk of the hand-wringing over China and Huawei is the product of competitors like Cisco, who adore over-hyping Huawei's issues in DC for competitive gain. Without public, verifiable evidence, it remains difficult to assess what percentage of the US hand-wringing is valid cybersecurity concern, and what percentage is just K Street bullshit (see: the "race to 5G").

There's also the fact that the United States continues to dole out surveillance ethics lectures despite having an abysmal track record on the subject. Recall the NSA broke into Huawei as early as 2009 to install its own backdoors, and has also been busted intercepting Cisco products in transit to embed them with surveillance tech. There was also this blockbuster Washington Post story this week highlighting how the US bought cryptography company Crypto AG, then abused that ownership for decades to weaken encryption and spy on its allies.

The US of course absolutely loves backdoors. And the US loves using companies like AT&T as an extension of its global surveillance efforts, to the point where you truly can't tell where the NSA ends and AT&T begins. But were foreign companies to then suggest that AT&T should be banned from doing business worldwide, the backlash and demands for transparent and open evidence from these exact same sources would register on the Richter scale. This "do as we say, not as we do" logic only has the effect of making it harder to take the US seriously when it suddenly expresses concern about rampant surveillance.

In short if the US truly wants to convince the world to not only ban Huawei, but to also spend the money needed to rip its equipment out of every network on Earth, (a particular issue for cash-crunched rural operators) it's going to need to provide more than some unverified claims in the Wall Street Journal.

Filed Under: china, networks, surveillance, us
Companies: huawei