Huawei Hits Back at U.S., Pledges Autonomy from China

Posted on February 19, 2019 by Paul Thurrott in Cloud with 57 Comments

Huawei has gone on the offensive this week against what it says is politically-motivated fear-mongering by the U.S. government. More substantially, the firm says that it will never collaborate with the Chinese government.

“I object to what the U.S. has done,” Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei said in a recent interview with the UK-based BBC. “This kind of politically-motivated act is not acceptable.”

Mr. Ren’s comments regard recent U.S. governmental actions against Huawei, which include criminal charges both corporate and personal: Ren’s daughter, Meng Wanzhou, is Huawei’s CFO, and she was arrested in December in Canada at the request of the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice charged that Ms. Meng worked on behalf of Huawei for over a decade to steal trade secrets from competitors, obstruct a criminal investigation, and evade economic sanctions on Iran.

More generally, the U.S.-led Huawei smear campaign is really about China, a rising economic, political, and military power that is expected to surpass the United States in the coming years. Fear of this future, and of Chinese companies’ close ties to the China government, has led to what many feel are evidence-free and xenophobic fears of Huawei and other Chinese tech firms. And to a trade war between the U.S. and China.

The U.S. campaign has had an impact, too: Australia and New Zealand have joined the U.S. in banning the use of Huawei 5G networking infrastructure for the coming wave, and Canada is now evaluating the supposed threat. European countries are likewise picking sides, though everything moves slowly in Europe. Regardless, Ren says that the U.S.-led efforts are doomed to fail.

“The world cannot leave us because we are more advanced,” Ren said during the interview. “If the lights go out in the West, the East will still shine. And if the North goes dark, there is still the South. America doesn’t represent the world. America only represents a portion of the world … If the US doesn’t trust us, then we will shift our investment from the US to the UK on an even bigger scale.”

As for the spying claims, Ren says that Huawei has never acted on behalf of the Chinese government and never will.

“The Chinese government has already clearly said that it won’t install any backdoors,” he explained. “And we won’t install backdoors either. We’re not going to risk the disgust of our country and of our customers all over the world, because of something like this. Our company will never undertake any spying activities. If we have any such actions, then I’ll shut the company down.”

The problem for the United States, of course, is that Huawei doesn’t need it to be successful. As is the case in the smartphone market, where Huawei is now the world’s second-largest maker of handsets despite having no presence at all in the U.S., Huawei’s networking infrastructure business can still succeed, if not dominate, worldwide.

Tagged with

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (57)

57 responses to “Huawei Hits Back at U.S., Pledges Autonomy from China”

  1. Avatar

    conan007

    Never collaborate with the Chinese government? Well, Ren Zhengfei is a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC) that controls Chinese government in the one-party state, and the Constitution of the CPC says its members are obliged to "execute the Party's decisions, and accept any job and actively fulfill any task assigned them by the Party". So has Ren Zhengfei decided to quit CPC?


    • Avatar

      Thomas Parkison

      In reply to conan007:

      Even if he does quit the CPC Huawei would still have to do what the Chinese government tells them to us. Why? Because the Chinese government is basically a dictatorship. You either do what they tell you to do or... bad things happen.


      As long as Huawei exists in China nobody should trust them. If Huawei wants the world to trust them they'll have to move completely out of China, including their executives and corporate headquarters. And even then I'd still be a bit nervous.

      • Avatar

        wright_is

        In reply to trparky:

        And when the US law enforcement turns up with a FISA order, the companies in the USA have to comply without question (and without being able inform anyone, even their lawyers). So what is the difference exactly?

        • Avatar

          conan007

          In reply to wright_is:

          The difference is rule of law and rule by law.

          • Avatar

            skane2600

            In reply to conan007:

            Nice turn of phrase but not really an argument.

            • Avatar

              conan007

              In reply to skane2600:

              I am sorry for you if you had not heard of or understood this argument. Probably looking up online or reading some books on democracy would help.

              • Avatar

                skane2600

                In reply to conan007:

                Thanks for the condescension, but it doesn't make your original statement any more of a real argument. Slogans rarely are. It's not enough to merely invoke a principle, you have to explain how it applies in the particular case if you want to make a convincing argument.

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  In this particular case? wright_is asked what is the difference between a US company obeying US laws and a Chinese company (e.g. Huawei) obeying Chinese laws. And I replied "the difference is rule of law and rule by law", so I meant the difference is not really about a company obeying the law in their country per se but the role of laws are different. The Chinese government makes laws but not subject to laws and actually are above laws. Companies serving such "laws" and government, with their chairperson swearing to "execute the Party's decisions, and accept any job and actively fulfill any task assigned them by the Party" surely is different than a US company following US laws?

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to conan007:

                  But you're still talking about the general case (i.e. "the role of laws are different").

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  Fine. I was answering the question by wright_is that "when the US law enforcement turns up with a FISA order..." which is also a general case. General case vs. general case, case closed.

            • Avatar

              ecumenical

              In reply to skane2600:

              Actually, the "turn of phrase" has a very concrete meaning.

              Rule of law refers to the idea that the law is itself the authority. The government itself can violate the law and be forced to change its behavior. Indeed, this happens constantly in the US and explains why organizations are currently filing bevies of lawsuits against the Trump administration - they are generally confident that if a Federal court orders the executive branch to change its behavior, the executive branch will bend, not the court.

              By contrast, the Chinese Communist Party prefers the phrase "rule by law," which implies that the Party will use predictable standards and laws to govern society, but does NOT imply that the Party itself can be held accountable under the law. Courts in China are governed directly by the CCP, and without judicial independence they provide no check on its behavior.

               You can read lots more on this topic if you care to.

              • Avatar

                skane2600

                In reply to ecumenical:

                But in this particular case, if the outcome is the same, the difference is irrelevant.


                And of course, there have been cases in the US when Congress, the Courts, and the President have all been aligned in denying citizens' rights making a kind of virtual "single party rule". The most blatant example is probably the military draft that violated the 13th Amendment.


                Update: My example is obviously not the most blatant example. Obviously slavery of Blacks was the most blatant example. Or perhaps if it was perfectly legal at the time the slaves could have rejoiced knowing that their suffering was OK because the US was a country of the "Rule of Law" rather than the "Rule by Law".

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  There is no such thing as perfect democracy or rule of law, not at least in the near future of human civilization. The difference is some countries are better than other countries in these regards. Speaking of slavery, when did US abolish slavery? China still had "Laogai" in 2000s. Just last year, China legalized Uighur ‘re-education’ camps in Xinjiang. US women, half of adult population, did not have right to vote until 1920, which you could say violated their citizens' rights, but China today is still far behind 1920's US in terms of democracy (don't get me wrong, Chinese citizens do vote, just like North Korean people, but there are only one candidate for important and top-level jobs, and would you surprise if I tell you that the candidates were chosen by CPC?)

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to conan007:

                  The topic isn't whether China or the US has a better system of government. Slavery ended and women got the vote in the US because the elites decided it. The general public didn't play any direct role in those decisions.

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  "The topic isn't whether China or the US has a better system of government."

                  Well, it was you who started talking about slavery and implied that the US was not a country of "rule of law" which is totally irrelevant today. I was thus telling you that there is no such thing as perfect rule of law since no country would be of rule of law using your method - we just make progress towards it but some countries make more progress than others.

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to conan007:

                  If you go back to the start of this subthread I was responding to the claim that there was a difference between backdoors installed by order of the China government and those installed by order of the US government on the basis of "rule by law" and "rule of law". My mention of slavery was intended to illustrated the simplistic nature of this comparison.


                  What countries do in theory is less important than what they do in practice.

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  I see. That is why you said "if the outcome is the same, the difference is irrelevant." You sound quite like some Turkish law makers (recall the 2016 news that Turkey proposed a bill to pardon rape if the raper is willing to marry the victim). Right, if the outcome is the same (marriage), does it matter how it was done, by raping or by asking nicely? It seems the difference is irrelevant to you.

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to conan007:

                  In your scenario, rape is the outcome and the marriage is just an attempt to avoid responsibility for the crime. At this point the discussion has "jumped the shark" and I'm done with it.

                • Avatar

                  conan007

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  Hmm, am I speaking a different English language? Merriam-Webster defines outcome as "something that follows as a result or consequence". So tell me, in Turkey's law makers' (NOT "my") proposed scenario, which follows which?


                  Of course context is just as important as outcome. Turkey's scenario, though ridiculous but is very telling. This is nothing new in health research. If you read a research report about smoking and health, you expect the author to disclose what their relationship with tobacco industry. If you read that coffee is better for your health, the author also need to disclose whether they are funded by Starbucks or some coffee shops. This does not mean researchers would necessarily do anything wrong but they require to disclose regardless. Ren Zhengfei's relationship with Chinese government is of course important, but unfortunately he just told blatant lies. If a health researcher deliberately lie about their relationship with relevant industry (tobacco, coffee in the examples above), would you still trust their research "outcome" to the same degree?


                  Agree the discussion is going nowhere. I cannot really believe that someone is comparing a company complying a democratic country's law (again not perfect but this is not about finding a flawless country), with a company essentially siding with a dictator, and claim the difference is "irrelevant". I don't even know where to start.

                • Avatar

                  ecumenical

                  In reply to skane2600:


                  Can you be specific about what, in this case, you think is the same? Microsoft has a long and well-documented history of lawsuits and trials predicated on conflict between Microsoft and the US government. Huawei is governed directly by the CCP, which has a party cell within the company and ensures that Huawei's top leadership are either CCP members or vetted by the Party.


                  If your only criteria for saying they are "the same" is that Microsoft is also ultimately subject to US law, then you're denying there's any substantive difference between the US and China because the US and China have both done bad things. By this criteria, it makes no difference that people in the US can openly protest, sue their government, post critical comments on the internet, or do any of the other number of things they can do to change their government's behavior which are denied to Chinese citizens. It makes no difference that the slaves were ultimately liberated through direct political (and military) action, that women did gain the right to vote, or that the draft ended after popular protests. That seems like a silly position to take.


                  Finally, the fact that some people's rights have been (and continue to be) denied in the United States does not prove that corporate governance is identical in the US and China.

                • Avatar

                  wright_is

                  In reply to ecumenical:

                  Except that Microsoft (and others) lost the important battle, the battle to be open about FISA courts and letters. They wanted to be able to say how many FISA letters they had to respond to, not who was targeted, just the number of letters issued, but that was denied.

                  The current situation looks very much like a case of do as I say, not as I do.

        • Avatar

          Greg Green

          In reply to wright_is:

          From NYTimes, Aug 2018: China’s Communists Rewrite the Rules for Foreign Businesses


          “One hammer and sickle at a time, the Communist Party is making its way deeper into everyday Chinese life — and that includes the foreign companies doing business there.


          “Honda, the Japanese automaker, changed its legal documents to give the party a say in how its Chinese factories are run. A Chinese state oil giant vowed to put the party front and center in its joint ventures with foreign partners.


          “And Cummins, the engine maker from Indiana, felt the party’s reach, too, when it tried to appoint a new manager for one of its China businesses. The party said no.”


        • Avatar

          cuppettcj

          In reply to wright_is:

          I suppose the difference is that the actions of one country benefits its interests while the actions of another benefits its own. If you want to see China continue to steal American IP (which as red.radar pointed out above is well-documented) and use it to build up its own industry and military at the expense of the United States and her workers then by all means support Huawei in this standoff. I will choose to continue supporting my country and her workers and interests. To each his own.

        • Avatar

          ecumenical

          In reply to wright_is:


          Well, the difference is that US companies are not obligated to host Republican Party cells within their organizations that have veto power over their decision making. US companies can and do fight legal orders from the US government all the time. They may cozy up in certain areas, no doubt - but they are also fundamentally independent entities.

          Your own example is a case in point: the US government has to show up with an explicit legal order that goes through an explicit legal process (whatever your thoughts on the sufficiency of said process). In contrast, the Chinese Communist Party operates all major institutions within the PRC as assets to be deployed in the service of national gain. This includes universities, enterprises, trade unions, non-profits, etc. I have working experience directly in this area. They have gotten a little more cautious about the English-language labels that are applied to party cells and party officers who are embedded in these organizations so as not to alarm foreigners, but those cells are there and they do direct the decision-making of those institutions.

          In addition, even the formally "non-party" leaders of these institutions (CEOs, university Presidents, etc.) are almost universally Party members who are subject to Party discipline.

          If you doubt any of this, feel free to read up. There's lots of political scholarship on these topics with deep roots and firm grounding.

          If you doubt that this comprises a substantial difference from the way major corporations operate in the US, I can't really help you.

        • Avatar

          Greg Green

          In reply to wright_is:

          From Time.com: Movie Star Fan Bingbing's Disappearance Raises Questions About the Chinese Justice System


          From Australiaian Broadcasting Company: China 'disappeared' several high-profile people in 2018 and some of them are still missing


          From Chicago Tribune, Dec 2017: Thousands disappear as China polices thought


          “Nobody knows what happened to the Uighur student after he returned to China from Egypt and was taken away by police...


          “The student's friends think he joined the thousands — possibly tens of thousands — of people, rights groups and academics estimate, who have been spirited without trial into secretive detention camps for alleged political crimes that range from having extremist thoughts to merely traveling or studying abroad.“

        • Avatar

          Greg Green

          In reply to wright_is:

          Also EU is filing with the WTO claiming:


          European companies coming to China are forced to grant ownership or usage rights of their technology to domestic Chinese entities and are deprived of the ability to freely negotiate market-based terms in technology transfer agreements.”

        • Avatar

          Greg Green

          In reply to wright_is:

          From Reuters, Aug 2017: Exclusive: In China, the Party’s push for influence inside foreign firms stirs fears


          “Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about.


          “One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions.


          ““Once it is part of the governance, they have direct rights,” he said.”

  2. Avatar

    red.radar

    The issue I believe has nothing to do with National Security. That I believe is the smoke screen. I think its really about intellectual property theft. US companies will never get a fair trial in China, so they are lobbying the US government for assistance. They are using the "National security" Boogie man as the pulpit for solving the problem.


    Huawei's IP theft is well documented an circulated.

    • Huawei routers that are built using Cisco Source Code
    • Huawei participating in industrial espionage to get
    • Apples EGC Watch sensing technology
    • The Finger robot from T-mobile


    Huawei's dominance was built on the backs of foreign innovation, but because we are using the "national security" boogie man it muddies the waters and allows Ren a foothold in the conversation about bullying.


    But the other side of this coin. US Firms have exploits into equipment that the US government uses. So Germany and other countries are trying to certify and test their equipment to ensure its safe. ... good luck... That means you are an expert and if you could certify that that then you would be building your own equipment. Its like saying Lets allow the Trojan Horse into the city. But we know how to check it very thoroughly to make sure there are no invaders. . . . . Its a fool's errand.


    • Avatar

      generalprotectionfault

      In reply to red.radar:

      This is quite right. It's the IP theft issues, more than anything else, that have caused a shift in Washington. This is one of the few issues that isn't really driven entirely by this Administration - there's been a rather stark shift in most of the FP establishment towards China & Chinese investment. They no longer feel US firms will get a fair shake, feel they have waited long enough for changes, and are now responding.

  3. Avatar

    Daekar

    Those are well-written statements from Ren. Too bad that doesn't give us any information about whether or not they're true, and doesn't guarantee things aren't done without the knowledge of Huawei's C-suite.


    I think the approach the Germans are taking is probably the best. Making decisions without data is a bad plan. Until those kind of results are available, pretty much anything further written about this is a waste of bytes or politically motivated, pick your poison.

  4. Avatar

    delicieuxz

    If Huawei doesn't install any backdoors in their products then that would make their products a lot safer than US products, because most any US product by a large US company has a backdoor built into it for the US government.


    [Look up article "U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms"]


    Don't forget PRISM, and Microsoft, Google, and Amazon's tight partnerships with the US government. And Facebook is literally content managed by Atlantic Council - the propaganda and disinformation arm of NATO.


    The FBI was even wanting to mandate government backdoors into all US tech products in recent years.


    The US government is simply upset that the Chinese government might be doing what the US government is already doing, and always has been doing. All Microsoft software was backdoored for the US government by 1999, and Microsoft voluntarily handed over their customers' bulk data and encrypted messages to the NSA during PRISM - and anyone would be naive to think PRISM's practices ended or lessened rather than increased since then.


    [Look up article "NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999"]


    The US just using force to try to have no competition, as usual.

    • Avatar

      mestiphal

      In reply to delicieuxz:

      HAHA I was thinking exactly about this. Most people nowadays cover their webcam with a sticker so the "NSA doesn't spy" on them. Google a US company keeps track of location of all devices whether or not the user allows location tracking.


      Personally, I had to buy an Android phone coming off Windows Phone and I went with a Huawei because it was a lot cheaper for the technology it offers. I could care less if the NSA, Google, or the Chinese government track my daily routines... my simple life is so monotonous if they actually take 5 minutes to study the data they would probably offer me a vacation to their country out of petty.

  5. Avatar

    Rob_Wade

    As a United States citizen, and as a consumer, I think the U.S. government needs to put up or shut up. Where is the evidence that Huawei is doing any of the things they are accused of? I don't believe such evidence actually exists. I truly don't. I'm sick of governments getting in the way of business. I'm sick of protectionism and I'm sick of this nearly stifling trend toward nationalism when it comes to business. It's really simply. Lay out the evidence of wrong-doing by Huawei. Stop making baseless accusations, tweeting out attacks and then not backing them up. Open up the market.

    • Avatar

      skane2600

      In reply to Rob_Wade:

      Yes, the determination can be made entirely on a technical basis without regard to what "assets" claim. We've had the capability to reverse-engineer devices for decades.

    • Avatar

      Greg Green

      In reply to Rob_Wade:

      From Bloomberg:


      Huawei Sting Offers Rare Glimpse of the U.S. Targeting a Chinese Giant


      Diamond glass could make your phone’s screen nearly unbreakable—and its inventor says the FBI enlisted him after Huawei tried to steal his secrets. 


      “Even then, before Trump’s trade war and the indictments, the Huawei name carried plenty of baggage. In 2002, Cisco Systems Inc. accused the company of stealing source code for its routers. Motorola said in a 2010 lawsuit that Huawei had successfully turned some of its Chinese-born employees into informants. And in 2012 the U.S. House Intelligence Committee labeled Huawei a national security threat and urged the government and American businesses not to buy its products. Huawei denied all the claims. The Cisco and Motorola lawsuits ended with settlements.”

    • Avatar

      Greg Green

      In reply to Rob_Wade:

      From CNN, March 2018: How much has the US lost from China's IP theft?


      “One of the most recent high profile examples of theft of US intellectual property happened earlier this year. In January, a Beijing-based wind turbine company was found guilty in the US of stealing trade secrets, using secretly downloaded source code stolen from a Massachusetts company.”

  6. Avatar

    txag

    There is a story I saw today in theinformation.com: “How Huawei Targets Apple Trade Secrets” detailing some of the moves the company has made to steal intellectual property.

  7. Avatar

    cheetahdriver

    I recall a lot of people were saying the original allegations against Toyota were politically motivated, until it turned out that they were not only true, but worse than people had originally said. Never buy another Toyota again, they have lost me for LIFE, and I have owned 5 in the past.


    Same for VW.


    Same for Toshiba.


    Just sayin, most of these large scale allegations go through several stages before the truth finally comes out. More importantly, why would you take the chance if the worry is out there, and there is a competitor who doesn't have this problem. Not saying that the US is above a little whispering to help US companies, but this seems to go far above that level. While Huawei may not need the US to be successful, they are going to have trouble with the US actively acting against them.

  8. Avatar

    Skolvikings

    Well, I mean, if he says so. :-/

  9. Avatar

    DaveMcLain

    I didn't think that it was just the US. I thought it was Australia and Europe as well that were complaining about these guys.

    • Avatar

      Greg Green

      In reply to DaveMcLain:

      Yes. Aussies put out a pamphlet in 2014, Protecting intellectual property rights in China: an introductory guide


      From the EU website, June 2018, EU launches WTO case against China’s unfair technology transfers


      “European companies coming to China are forced to grant ownership or usage rights of their technology to domestic Chinese entities and are deprived of the ability to freely negotiate market-based terms in technology transfer agreements.”


      From CNBC, Jan 2018: Plagiarism is rampant in China, and its media companies are raking in billions


      “An expert in intellectual property law says that it's unambiguously against China's own rules for new media companies to commit plagiarism, but many in newsrooms there have been ignorant of the laws


      “An editor for an outlet that previously copied foreign articles into Chinese said her company has instituted new rules against plagiarism as Beijing begins to crack down on intellectual property theft.”




    • Avatar

      wright_is

      In reply to DaveMcLain:

      US, Australia and New Zealand. Canada is on the fence and Europe wants to see the US evidence, because their own investigations (including a open lab in England run by the UK's spymasters to look at Hauwei hardware and code, for the last few years) have failed to turn up anything.

  10. Avatar

    Mark from CO

    Well Paul, the criminal charges noted above will be brought to court and we'll see the degree of evidence there is. There have been enough articles about Chinese tech espionage in publications (critical of US policy), so to say there isn't some smoke is ignoring facts we have. And with other governments, not that friendly to the current US administration, taking similar action, to say that there is no evidence and that we are xenophobic is at best naïve on your part. And in matters like these, history tells us that we don't hear about the evidence for a long, long time.


    But I guess with the Chinese government so very tolerant to all its people, surely we can believe everything they say.

    • Avatar

      markld

      In reply to Mark from CO:

      Well said Mark

      I have been reading for many years the well documented stealing and espionage by the Chinese. Why try to manufacture something from ground zero, when it's easier to just steal it via blueprints or maybe just take a product manufactured in the US, and reverse engineer it, then manufacture it without any R&D?

      I'd love to site all the thousands of cheap Chinese knockoffs of what was formally came from the US, waste of time because most folks don't care.




  11. Avatar

    rehooks47

    Anyone with any sense of proper do diligence would never go near Huawei. This is not just US gov't issue there are countries in Europe not willing to trust Huawei. I hope US gov't and US companies keep them at arms length.

  12. Avatar

    wright_is

    In Europe it is going slower because, instead of just saying that there maybe backdoors and spy software in the devices, they are actually studying the hardware - there is (and has been for several years) in the UK a center run by the UK spymasters in conjunction with Hauwei, where the source code can be studied.

    Likewise, the German Government is proposing that the BSI (Federal Department for IT and Security) analyse the hardware and software and certify it.

    Then the US Secretary of State Pompeo declared that if countries used Hauwei kit, they would find the US could not be present in those countries.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-pompeo-hungary/pompeo-warns-allies-huawei-presence-complicates-partnership-with-u-s-idUKKCN1Q00QA

    I am assuming he means, because those countries aren't buying Cisco, HP etc. kit that the CIA and NSA can't interdict the hardware before delivery and install their spyware on it (as per the HP case a couple of years back) or have their backdoors (Cisco had a hard time last year removing dozens of backdoors from their kit) and therefore they can't be present in those countries, because the US TLAs don't have a presence on the kit sold to those countries.

    He certainly doesn't seem to have provided any proof that the Hauwei kit is actually contaminated.

    • Avatar

      jwpear

      In reply to wright_is:

      This is a complicated problem. It's hard to tell who is truthful and it's probably more nuanced than that.


      As for inspections and testing, we've seen instances where that didn't work out very well (e.g. VW's diesel emissions). VW's deceit was painful personally as my wife and I had been loyal VW owners for the past two decades.

    • Avatar

      lvthunder

      In reply to wright_is:

      Huawei's main competition for 5g equipment is Nokia I believe. I may be wrong, but I don't think any US based company currently sells 5g equipment. I know Intel is starting to make modems, but they aren't available yet.


      You can study the hardware and software that it ships with all you want, but are you going to test and scour though every patch to see if something hasn't been slipped in.

  13. Avatar

    wright_is

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/19/germany_huawei_5g_security/

    And now it looks like Germany will tell the US to trump up its evidence, because they can't find any signs of syping in the Hauwei kit.

    a clear indication that they are skeptical of American security claims came when German Data Protection Commissioner Ulrich Kelber pointedly noted in an interview with Handelsblatt that "the US itself once made sure that backdoor doors were built into Cisco hardware."

Leave a Reply