"we hire independent third-party security companies"
How are they independent if Huawei are hiring them?
Chinese comms kit giant Huawei Technologies, which controversially withdrew from its bid to buy 3Leaf Systems earlier this week, is calling on the US government to investigate claims that it has links to the People's Liberation Army. The company's deputy chairman Ken Hu attacked what he described as "a number of misperceptions …
How are they independent if Huawei are hiring them?
The auditors are getting paid for their work? Say it isn't so!
Surely someone must hire them. All corporations hire independent auditors to check their books. Are you questioning the independence of all of those agencies then?
Perhaps you'd like to pay for them yourself?
Because capitalism tends to work best with a democracy form of government and its fundamentally hard to trust the communist government not to interfere with business when it suits them. Though countries like South Korea and even the USA tend to push the envelope about proper separation of government and business (cough jingoistic Boeing deal).
Seems to be getting on fine under plenty of authoritarian regimes who don't have pesky things like Human Rights to get in the way of making money.
The Chinese army, like any army, buys a lot of stuff. Its going to buy this stuff mostly from local suppliers. Huawei is a large local supplier.
US legislators are a funny bunch. You only have to look at what's going on in our state and federal legislatures to realize that this sort of thing is not just irrelevant but its making us as a nation increasingly irrelevant.
>>The Chinese army, like any army, buys a lot of stuff.
Do other armies actually own stakes in the companies they buy from?
"The Chinese army, like any army, buys a lot of stuff." "Do other armies actually own stakes in the companies they buy from?"
In Europe and most of the world, yes they do own stakes. In the US, technically no, but in practice some companies are basically part of the US government (eg Lockheed Martin)
Lockheed are doing the UK census next month .
The other armies do not need to. The so called developed economies have appropriate export legislation which guarantees that stuff exported to other countries has the appropriate weaknesses in place. Weaker crypto, bad keying, you name it.
If you do not have that it often ends up being very painful. Russia forgot to put proper backdoors into the Tor missile system and voila, Georgia took out one of Russian Tu-22 Backfire bombers with it. Take a missile, aim at foot (bomber), fire.
1) Are you saying that the US Army or (insert your favourite army here) does not have any influence on the compnies they spend billions with, even if they don't have shares?
2) Do you think the 'secret services' don't have an influence on the telecoms companies in every country (à la Egypt)?
3) Could you please give a link to Huawei's ownership so I can check how much the PLA owns?
I'm more concerned about the very large state-backed loans from the chinese government - that's the communist party, not the PLA. Try to get the propaganda right.
(Is it just me, or is the FAIL icon vastly overused these day?)
Because the US of A would never force Yank companies to put back doors into their products or anything.
Oh wait, Cisco has a whole line of "Law Enforcement" capable IOSes with just such backdoors. Hrmm, I must re-evaluate my loyalties (and perhaps localities as well, thanks for that idea, spell checker).
Paris 'cause, you know, back doors and all.
or compromise they decide to scare potential users to avoid it.
Chinese equipment imported into the USA still has to comply with CALEA which enables the US government to plug straight in to monitor traffic.
The US always plays dirty when it comes to competition. And complains when it is bettered by others.
I see nothing wrong with UK underground services using Huawei equipment, the chances are that there similar systems already in use in China so no funding will be required for design and the British will gain from China's experience. Not all good ideas come from the brains of Westerners.
re: third-party security companies, such as EWA,"
search for the ceo's patents. The one I found could be titled: How to blow up a building by remote control while preventing the building's occupants from blowing up your demolition men.
Personnly, I don't think Huweii's spokesman showed enough disdain/outrage
Too much outrage, definitely. Who's doing their PR on this, Timothy Geithner?
When China opens up its market to foreign competition in the same manner, why shouldn't they be able to bid for US companies.
Huawei have access to virtually limitless government backed 0 interest loans. They can buy any business they choose to.
"In a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a group of top U.S. lawmakers accused Huawei of having ties not only with the People’s Liberation Army, but also with the Taliban and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."
I can only hope this is true, next the Septics will accuse Huawei of "loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing, smelling of foreign food, urinating in a public convenience, coughing without due care and attention, looking at me in a funny way, walking on the cracks in the pavement, walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness, walking around with an offensive wife" (thanks to Not the Nine O'Clock News)"
At least they don't respect mine. Their bot downloads content from my website even when my robots.txt makes it quite clear they are not welcome. They (and many other Chinese bots) download my Intellectual property for their own commercial purposes, contrary to the copyright conditions attached to my site. They do so without consent, and by intercepting, (with their partners, UK ISP, TalkTalk), the individual point to point internet communications between my website visitors and my site, without the consent of either party.
So I find their assertions in their open letter
about respecting intellectual property impossible to believe. They claim "Since our establishment, Huawei has respected and protected the rights of all intellectual property holders while vigorously defending our own intellectual property rights." - but this is simply not true. They do NOT respect the rights of intellectual property rights holders - because they have respected mine, and I have the log entries and download records to prove it.
Neither their own bot nor the one they operate with TalkTalk seem to care on jot about other people's intellectual property. I've even had statements in writing from their partners TalkTalk stating that they do not need to even bother worrying about my intellectual property rights - because my site is available on the internet so they can do what they like - irrespective of the requirements of the copyright law - (which restricts them from downloading my content for their commercial advantage).
Sorry Huawei - I've read the Open Letter - pull the other one, it's got IP rights on it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017