Searching \ for '[OT] reason for Huawei ban?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=reason+huawei+ban
Search entire site for: 'reason for Huawei ban?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] reason for Huawei ban?'
2019\05\27@074723 by Lyle Hazelwood

picon face
Greetings all,

Notably [OT], and hopefully avoiding any political.

Huawei has been banned from doing business in the U.S.. From here, I
can find only peripheral reasons why this might have happened, but no
hard cause.

I was surprised to find them the second largest cell phone maker.

I'd like to think something as big as this would require some
evidence, but all I can find here is suspicion about their "ties to
the Chinese government"..

Sadly, I'm in a country where accurate information is getting harder
to find. Are they really as scary as our current government wants us
to believe?

Thanks,
Lyle
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2019\05\27@085203 by Clint Jay

picon face
While a lot of the things coming out of the present administration are hot
air, Huawei have links (and have acknowledged) to Chinese state security
services.

They have claimed they would defy orders to give Chinese security services
access to network infrastructure built on their hardware, you need to ask
yourself, would you defy any state's security services, especially if the
state had a record like the Chinese state?

They are undoubtedly being punished as part of a far larger anti China
narrative and no doubt somewhat unjustly but there are what seem to be
reasonable grounds for it.

What you should ask yourself is if the acceptable manufacturers of network
infrastructure and associated equipment are more or less likely to bow down
to state requests from their own government's security services (or If
indeed they already have done)?




On Mon, 27 May 2019, 12:50 Lyle Hazelwood, <spam_OUTlylehazeTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2019\05\27@101308 by Jeff Sheldon

picon face

It helps to follow Huawei news over a long period. Some of the public details have emerged through their actions in Africa, in Poland and Eastern Europe, and with technologies related to satellite and submarine cabling. Some of those ties have been exposed through their own goof-ups and Western monitoring of supply chain and network activity.  This can expand into a much larger conversation, but because the public only gets bits and pieces, much will be labeled as speculation (because people these days like to pretend they can deduce better than everyone else).

At this point, most western powers don’t like the claims that even some Huawei technologies are safe to use “because x, y, and z”.  Their equipment pretty much anywhere in the link of comms activity allows for additional equipment and data massaging which can result in gathered intelligence of some nature. Plus, a foot in the door always keeps them on the table for bigger projects that might not be widely recognized before deals are made.


-Jeff

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\27@161639 by Bob Blick

flavicon
face
Just a reminder for everyone to tread lightly and stick to the technical aspects. Please try to avoid speculation and political/racial tones.

Thanks, Bob


-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2019\05\27@162409 by Richard Prosser

picon face

OTOH they may just be an (almost ?) innocent victim of rhetoric &
supposition.   Proof of bad behaviour seems to be seriously lacking and,
given the publicity involved, if there was direct evidence then I'd have
thought it would be well publicised.
Other suppliers of network equipment have been caught out doing similar
things for their governments but ....

Probably a topic best stayed away from on this forum.
RP

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 07:35, Jeff Sheldon <jeffsheldonspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\27@173819 by James Cameron

flavicon
face
On the issue of state control over companies.

Australian companies and contractors are likewise required by our
government to give access without-warrant to sold and deployed devices
or apps, even if they are deployed in other countries.  Also may be
required to leave backdoors in encryption.  When commanded to do so,
may not reveal this.  Transparency is limited.  National security is
the justification.

American companies are also subject to similar requirements, though
the courts and judiciary are more involved in the process.  The
warrant canary technique evolved because initial law and regulation
didn't cover the possibility.  Australian system has arranged to cover
it, and so warrant canaries can't be used.

I've heard there are other countries with similar law.

China isn't alone in this control of companies, but has a longer
tradition of it, in part because of how the ruling party has
representation within the legal structure of companies.

However, I'm not sure if state control over companies is at the root
of the current dispute.  Perhaps it is just one of the points of
argument in a deeper dispute.

Here's a great cartoon infographic on how disputes can evolve;

http://theconversation.com/comic-how-to-have-better-arguments-about-the-environment-or-anything-else-98554

-- James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2019\05\27@174602 by Lyle Hazelwood

picon face

Thank you all for your responses.
I especially appreciate that the responses were carefully considered.

While PicList may not be the best place to ask such questions,  there are
few places from where I would better trust the response.

I'll switch back to lurking mode, but will gladly jump in if a question
matches one of my fields of experience.

Lyle

On Mon, May 27, 2019, 4:25 PM Richard Prosser <EraseMErhprosserspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\27@184255 by Allen Mulvey

flavicon
face

I was a law enforcement officer for 31 years. I did not often reveal any more information about a case than I was required by law to do. Every bit of information provides clues to techniques and sources. When the techniques and sources become known they can be circumvented, or worse if the sources are human. The evidence will not be volunteered. In the US we have Freedom of Information laws which force disclosure in many circumstances but yet, in theory, protect individuals and national security.

Allen Mulvey

{Original Message removed}

2019\05\27@185340 by Ryan O'Connor

picon face

It has been publically announced for some time that the US government has
classified evidence for why they would like the phone make banned, and that
it relates to national security. The evidence first affected the US
government itself directly, and the ban was immediate internally for
members working in any military operations. It quickly also decided that
security may be compromised in the future because of the general public
using the make of phone. So it was banned pre-emptively for the general
public mostly for unclearly announced political reasons (that you have
stumbled across). These reasons tie in strongly with the classified
evidence, and that is my opinion on why it has not been made clear as to
why.

Ryan

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 09:47, Lyle Hazelwood <KILLspamlylehazeKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\27@220651 by Stephen Forrest

picon face

Hmmph - bad behavior in Africa and Easter Europe notwithstanding, I suspect
it's because the various TLA agencies have be _unable_ to backdoor/crack
them to gain access to intelligence.

 ;o)

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:56 AM Ryan O'Connor <RemoveMErocifierspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\27@221731 by Ryan O'Connor

picon face

That's an interesting thought. You may well be correct, but we won't know
for sure unless they release info or it got wiki-leaked.

Ryan

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 14:09, Stephen Forrest <RemoveMEsforrest.auTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\28@013653 by Clint Jay

picon face

That's one possibility, we've seen Cisco and other more 'local' kit can be
tampered with, I'd assume their software updates are signed so that would
suggest the keys are known.

Maybe Huawei were resistant to allowing the TLAs access...

On Tue, 28 May 2019, 03:09 Stephen Forrest, <EraseMEsforrest.auspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\28@055504 by Justin Richards

face picon face

I was keeping up but TLA's?  I tried a TLA search with some context but no
joy.

TLA
Top Level Agents

I assume some third party auditors of some sort.

Justin

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:38 PM Clint Jay <.....cjaysharpspamRemoveMEgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\28@060720 by Clint Jay

picon face

TLA in this context, Three letter agency, the NSA, CIA, FBI, the spies.

On Tue, 28 May 2019, 10:58 Justin Richards, <EraseMEjustin.richardsspam@spam@gmail.com>
wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2019\05\28@072145 by AB Pearce - UKRI STFC

face picon face

TLA = Three Letter Acronym, e.g. FBI and some other more sinister ones.


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam@spam@mit.edu <RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamBeGonemit.edu> On Behalf Of Justin Richards
Sent: 28 May 2019 10:55
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <spamBeGonepiclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [OT] reason for Huawei ban?

I was keeping up but TLA's?  I tried a TLA search with some context but no joy.

TLA
Top Level Agents

I assume some third party auditors of some sort.

Justin

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:38 PM Clint Jay <cjaysharpspam_OUTspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2019 , 2020 only
- Today
- New search...