Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Interesting 60 Minutes Piece on Huawei (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter -jb-
- Start date
johnnycakes
Footballguy
"Once you get the camel's nose in the tent, you can go anywhere". 
-jb-
Footballguy
what about its toe?"Once you get the camel's nose in the tent, you can go anywhere".
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
I had been wondering how to pronounce Huawei for a while.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
I had never heard that before.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel's_nose"Once you get the camel's nose in the tent, you can go anywhere".
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
So I'm watching the part where he interviews the American VP of External Relations or whatever the #### he was, and in response to a question about Huawei being a security threat his answer was "Huawei is a business in the business of doing business".
Yeah you just alleviated any concerns I had, thanks.
Yeah you just alleviated any concerns I had, thanks.
The Hardline
Footballguy
Yeah there seemed to be a lot of double talk coming from the US VP and no response from the Chinese Executive team. I think the idea is that these corporations (any corporations) think that the average consumer is a mindless sheep with a 3 second memory - and for the most part maybe we are.
Right after that segment they laid into Luxottica Group for 20 minutes too...the executive from that segment kept dancing like Spider in Goodfellas.
I don't think I would accept a request for 60 minutes to do a piece on my company these days.
Executive: "My nonprofit makes and distributes food all around the world at no cost to any American tax payer to hungry children while they sit in a classroom being taught classic Russian literature from a renowned PhD."
60 Minutes: "Yes but how do you respond to allegations that your are increasing diabetes and childhood obesity in third world countries with your high calorie, high sodium products while promoting a historically communist agenda?"
Right after that segment they laid into Luxottica Group for 20 minutes too...the executive from that segment kept dancing like Spider in Goodfellas.
I don't think I would accept a request for 60 minutes to do a piece on my company these days.
Executive: "My nonprofit makes and distributes food all around the world at no cost to any American tax payer to hungry children while they sit in a classroom being taught classic Russian literature from a renowned PhD."
60 Minutes: "Yes but how do you respond to allegations that your are increasing diabetes and childhood obesity in third world countries with your high calorie, high sodium products while promoting a historically communist agenda?"
NCCommish
Footballguy
Apple is made in China. Why aren't we worried about those products? It is apparent Apple has no real operational control. Why couldn't their devices be used to spy for the Chinese? In fact why can't any electronics device manufactured in China? This seems like to me someone is getting good payback for their checks to congress critters.
The Hardline
Footballguy
Good questions...could it be that Huawei is interested in building the communications infrastructure and not the devices that are used on it? If they control the infrastructure they could possibly disable all or portions of it where as I am not sure how that would apply to devices like the iPhone.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
They did a Thomas Drake NSA-whistleblower thing fairly recently. And I vaguely recall them doing something about the domestic spying program during the Bush years. I think the fact that the U.S. government was so easily able to compel telecoms to be complicit in the spying program is the very reason they're wary about letting a Chinese firm handle so much domestic telecom infrastructure now. From what little I know, I think it's a valid concern. I mean, I don't think Huawei is going to roll over and sabotage their own business, but who's to say what the international landscape is going to be 10 or 20 years from now?
matuski
Footballguy
My dad did an interview on 60 minutes, and he always talks about how they put you in the crosshairs and go for your throat. He only agreed to do it after extensive research into the motives of 60 minutes. They weren't after him or his agency, so he went ahead.Toughest interview/debate/presentation he ever made (as opposed to congressional testimony, presidential briefings, etc.).
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
The Matuski Chronicles, I remember that episode, you're father was a whistle blower on the Japanese sushi influx of the 90s, fascinating piece.
The Commish
Footballguy
I think a difference is this is a Chinese company who's wanting to build an entire infrastructure in our country. They answer 100% to the Chinese government and have zero ties/allegence to the US. To my knoweldge, there is no sort of operational control analysis done in this country when a foreign country introduces a product. I see what you're saying, but I think the degree here is much larger.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Yeah Cisco is building infrastructure here. Like to guess where an awful lot of their equipment is built and assembled? Or Alcatel-Lucent? This is all just election year crap combined with some well spent lobbyist money IMO.
The Commish
Footballguy
I have always seen a difference between a company basically run by the chinese government with no insight into their operations a bit different than a US based company who sends their product overseas to be built by cheap labor. At least in the later, there is a reporting responsibility to the US. There is zero recourse with the former (other than to remove their product from our infrastructure completely)
jonessed
Footballguy
They wouldn't have continued control over the product in any way and the company itself would not be complicit in the espionage process. This kind of espionage would require hardware, software, and a system of information delivery and updating that would require significant process control. It's apples and oranges.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well Huawei isn't owned by the Chinese government. It is owned by the employees. But regardless if the Chinese are trying to spy on us via the electronic stuff we buy from them it really doesn't matter whose name is on it. The factories reside in China so by the reasoning of if the Chinese own it it is espionage prone then all manufactured products are suspect.
The Commish
Footballguy
Can we agree this is in name only or at least it's only true until the Chinese government doesn't like something they are doing or they refuse to do something the government is requesting?My reasoning make a distinction between China owning every aspect vs China owning particular components. Can we agree that if China is simply a manufacturer and all the intellectual pieces are American owned that's a different situation from China owning everything?
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
No we can't really. If the idea is we are preventing espionage then anything produced in China has the same level of possible contamination. You can make a chip that has spyware on it along with the normal on chip programming after all. Is Cisco conducting an exhaustive security check on every device before it goes to a distributors warehouse? Is Apple? I doubt it.Look I am not saying China can't do what is mentioned here. And despite the lack of any real evidence I'll even say maybe they are. But we can't say it's only about products with tricky names. It is about every product or this stinks of some folks who pay money to politicians undercutting competitors.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Some of what you are describing has already happened with come Cisco and other low level controllers having compromised subsystems. There are rigorous checks in place to prevent that kind of activity from occurring again which only allows for very specific manufacturers and products being allowed within sensitive areas. It is Apple's responsibility to prevent the Chinese government from spying on its customers and because it is impossible to know for certain that any given consumer electronic device is or isn't providing data to an unknown outside third party is exactly why any consumer device capable of storing and/or transmitting data is not allowed within controlled areas of both the government and private sector.Schlzm
ETA: It is also extremely naive to think that the Chinese government doesn't have the ability to provide marching orders and demand data from any company headquartered within China.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
Matuski Nursing Home "As Seen on 60 Minutes"
NCCommish
Footballguy
Oh goody one of the guys behind the faulty Iraq War intelligence. Not to mention other issues with his reporting since he joined World Net Daily. Please find another source this one is massively tainted and not very reliable.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I'm sure they can. Just like the American government has. Just like India has. Everyone is spying on everyone. But the idea that a manufacturer whose products are used globally is just blithely making their devices available as spying platforms borders on the absurd. The idea that they are so stupid they would think that only using a Chinese brand and not infiltrating other brands they have complete access to would work also seems a more than a little absurd.
Schlzm
Footballguy
You can dismiss official reports and throw around accusations of absurdity all you want but you are wrong. Try this writeup on for size and comeback if you want to continue dismissing a very real threat. Hell, Apple and Google actively spy on users of their smartphones but if you are going to pretend that one the worlds biggest employers of espionage and intellectual property theft isn't doing just that it seriously calls your credibility into question beyond this subject.Schlzm
Last edited by a moderator:
Acme CEO
Footballguy
Who said this? I'm not sure why you have this pro China anti America stance on the issue. It's pretty simple: China does not allow any other country to build their communications infrastructure. Only Chinese bids are allowed. Why only complain when it's applied in reverse?
Added to this is China's history of blatant theft of IP. There simply isn't a negative connotation to stealing IP over there. 80% + all software used in Chinese business are stolen. This is a systemic issue, condoned from the top down in Chinese companies. I work for one of the largest OEMs in Shanghai (150BB+ market cap) - this is essentially their MO in regards to software. ZTE is one of the most notorious for IP theft and blatant disregard for patent licenses - especially in the mobile industry. They are "public" but are basically a state entity with exclusive, no-bid communications and military contracts. You really need to do some research on the company.
Put it another way: why should we take the risk and buy from known offenders or "ex-cons" when we can buy from companies with clean records like Nokia-Seimens?
eta: We're not talking about handsets - those can be checked fairly easily. We're talking about communications & wireless backbone infrastructure.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
And you should read your own links:
So they are offering full access and the Brits are happy with the vetting they are doing. Yeah that's what a company does when their ultimate goal is trying to infiltrate your communications infrastructure.
NCCommish
Footballguy
First being critical of a Congressional report and the associated hysterics isn't anti-American. Second I am well aware of our Asian problem with IP theft. Especially Chinese. But I can go online right now and get any hacked software I want from Americans and I have had to help American companies get into compliance before they got fined for their misappropriated software. So it isn't just the Chinese. My initial point was and remains if we are so worried about this kind of industrial espionage it can't be just about Chinese companies. It has to be about any of this stuff made in China. Or in any foreign country for that matter. You really don't think the only people spying on us are the Chinese do you?
Schlzm
Footballguy
Actually that is exactly what a company/entity does when they are trying to infiltrate your infrastructure. Also I was agreeing with you that we can't blindly trust anything coming out of China as they have an already proven track record of compromising items. Why you are operating from some stance that we should take Huawei's word that they just want to play nice and build us up on the cheap is baffling, aren't you former military?Schlzm
No. But nothing you've said renders the point of the 60 Minutes piece or the US's concern about Huawei moot. The fact is that China is the biggest threat to the US and special care should be taken when its companies seek to monopolize communications in our country.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Yes I am former military. As you are IIRC. And again my argument has been misconstrued. I am not taking Huawei's word for anything. However I really don't believe they are in bed with the Chinese government the way it has been portrayed, wouldn't make any business sense for them. They get caught willfully up to something they lose billions.I am saying I sense a security kabuki dance funded by American companies and nicely dovetailing with the political season. I don't think preventing certain companies from being in on a project, while allowing others whose stuff is produced in the same place to be, makes us any more secure. And if we aren't going to go after the whole thing it stinks of follow the money to the lobbyist to me.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Still enlisted. Your argument may have been misconstrued but that's only because of how flippant you came across to the possibility that Huawei isn't a potential threat <I would also like to add that this has been blown a little out of proportion>. However to address your first point;
Not sure where you stand on The Daily Beast, but this is from 2006and;
A similar affiliated company has already compromised their bottom line through their business practices.To address your second point. I don't think anyone would be surprised to see existing American telecoms doing everything in their power to restrict competition at any level. As to it being the political season, I can only expect that is why the story has gotten as big as it has. Previous high level exploits by the Chinese regularly go relatively underreported unless that is the type of circle you run in.
Schlzm
DevilsTrifecta
Footballguy
I work with Huawei every day. Never seen or heard of anything remotely nefarious.
You'd expect them to tell you about Chinese government sponsored espionage against the US?
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm not dismissing that it could be done on anything produced in China. What I'm saying is, detecting it on a device being created by people outside the Chinese is much more likely than detecting it in an infrastructure created in a completely closed system that no one (other than China) has internal knowledge of. Both are a potential problem, but the closed system is a bigger problem IMO.
The Commish
Footballguy
When they allow the US this kind of access, I'll jump down off my soapbox. That they've denied access at least a handful of times so far is a problem for me.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I saw where Cisco dropped ZTE. If they were selling Cisco to Iran I can see dropping them. It should be noted Cisco was with ZTE to combat the sales losses:
My guess is Huawei is still beating them on price. And probably a lot of other people as well. To me that is the biggest driver of all this.But ZTE wasn't dropped because their equipment was compromised.
I also know the history of Huawei. I think we would be a little pissed if China said well any US company run by a veteran is ineligible for sales in China as it must mean they are tied to, and being used for espionage by the US government. Even if it is true in some cases. One of which I am intimately familiar with.
17seconds
root of all aliai
Haven't watched the video yet but I do a lot of work with ZTE and Huawei. Both of them are a joke. ZTE is worse. I have had several guys on my team spend months in China teaching them how to develop their products. The engineers are pretty much useless. Their culture is to be a collective like the Borg. You can't find a person who knows more than 2% about anything. It requires dealing with 10 different people to get some kind of answer. They have no accessible technical experts. They say a product is finished when it fails 75% of the certification tests.
When they send people to the US they give them basically no meal per diem, and make them take public transportation. We are always buying them meals.
Also know several people who worked for Huawei in the US and if you can last more than 6mos it's a miracle. If the project has problems, it's your fault, never the guys in China. If you do something well then your translators get all the credit.
I'll watch the video now...
When they send people to the US they give them basically no meal per diem, and make them take public transportation. We are always buying them meals.
Also know several people who worked for Huawei in the US and if you can last more than 6mos it's a miracle. If the project has problems, it's your fault, never the guys in China. If you do something well then your translators get all the credit.
I'll watch the video now...
The Commish
Footballguy
Small world....just got off the phone with a school friend who is now in the mobile business and is on a project with Huawei. He just told me all these things, almost verbatim. His percentages were a bit off from yours
I asked him if the paranoia was justified and his honest response was he wasn't sure since there was no visibility into the "how" they do things. But he said he wouldn't be running any sort of infrastructure that required significant protection through anything they produce. Take it FWIW 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm absolutely shocked!!!!!!
The Commish
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
I have one of their phones and it works pretty good. If the Chinese are spying on me then they know who to call if they need some bud when they are in town.
-jb-
Footballguy
Huawei Pressed In The UK, Australia On Telecom Cybersecurity Issues
China-based telecommunications giant Huawei continues to be pressed on multiple fronts regarding allegations its equipment could be used to provide cybersurveillance capabilities for the Chinese government.
In the latest in what has become a full-court press against Huawei, the U.K. government confirmed to the BBC that it is probing the Cyber Security Evaluations Centre in Banbury, Oxfordshire, which was set up by Huawei to assess possible cyber risks related to the company's equipment.
Meanwhile, the former head of the CIA and National Security Agencytold the Australian Financial Review that he believes Huawei is a "significant security threat" to both the U.S. and Australia.
[Related: Huawei Enterprise Comes Out Swinging At Cisco, Others Over Their Lack Of Innovation]
These actions, which follow an October report by the U.S. Congress that found equipment from Huawei to be a potential security threat in the U.S., form a serious triangle of resistance to Huawei's telecom market expansion despite being the world's second-largest telecommunications provider.
In the U.K., the government this week said it is reviewing the security arrangements provided by the Cyber Security Evaluations Centre, known as the "Cell," in the wake of a June report by the Intelligence and Security Committee that found serious issues with how the Cell was managed.
The Cell in 2010 was set up and funded by Huawei as part of a 2005 agreement between it and British Telecom related to a government contract. All Cell personnel except its head, a former deputy director of Government Communications Headquarters, are from Huawei as well.
The BBC quoted a Cabinet Office spokesperson as saying that the government takes threats to its critical national infrastructure seriously, and that it has robust procedures in place to ensure confidence in U.K. telecommunications networks security.
"However, we are not complacent and as such we have agreed to the main recommendation of the report to conduct a review of Huawei's Cyber Security Evaluation Centre [the 'Banbury Cell'] to give assurance that we have the right measures and processes in place to protect UK telecommunications," the spokesperson was quoted as saying.
Meanwhile, in Australia, where Huawei is working to promote its telecom equipment as a safe offering from a company independent of the Chinese government, the Australian Financial Review on Thursday published an interview with Michael Hayden, the former head of the CIA and NSA, in which Hayden said he is certain Huawei supplied sensitive intelligence to China in his "professional judgment."
Hayden said Western intelligence agencies knew about Huawei's alleged clandestine activities. The company, at a minimum, had "shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with," the paper quoted him as saying.
Huawei has steadily maintained that the company is completely independent of the Chinese government, noting several times in the past that if that were not so, the company's business outside of China would be at risk.
A Huawei spokesperson said in a statement emailed to CRN that the company welcomes the U.K. Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee June report.
In the statement, the spokesperson called out a quote from the U.K. response: "Our work with Huawei and their UK customers gives us confidence that the networks in the UK that use Huawei equipment are operated to a high standard of security and integrity."
"Huawei supports the decision that the National Security Advisor should review the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre. Huawei shares the same goal as the UK government and the ISC in raising the standards of cyber security in the UK and ensuring that network technology benefits UK consumers. Huawei is open to new ideas and ways of working to improve cyber security," the spokesperson said.
Gary Fish, founder and CEO of FishNet Security, a Kansas City, Mo.-based solution provider specializing in networking security, said he doesn't partner with Huawei today, but not necessarily because of security concerns. Instead, Fish said, it's more a matter of customer demand.
"We tend to look at customers and what they are demanding and asking for, and they are not asking for that today," Fish said. "I don't know if the security threat is real or not with Huawei. We use a lot of hardware and software that's not manufactured here in the U.S. Products are innovated all over the world, so, to me, it doesn't necessarily make them not secure."
Glenn Conley, president and CEO of Metropark Communications, a St. Louis-based solution provider and Huawei partner, said there seems to be a lot of posturing going on around Huawei.
"It could be simply deflection at the highest levels pointing fingers at Huawei in the face of more of Western spying efforts that may come out," Conley said. "Huawei is an easy target [because] they have a .com after their name and not a .gov. I can't speak for the people in the U.K., but the Huawei equipment seems to be very sound, with no back doors to Beijing."
http://www.crn.com/news/networking/240158556/huawei-pressed-in-the-uk-australia-on-telecom-cybersecurity-issues.htm?pgno=1
China-based telecommunications giant Huawei continues to be pressed on multiple fronts regarding allegations its equipment could be used to provide cybersurveillance capabilities for the Chinese government.
In the latest in what has become a full-court press against Huawei, the U.K. government confirmed to the BBC that it is probing the Cyber Security Evaluations Centre in Banbury, Oxfordshire, which was set up by Huawei to assess possible cyber risks related to the company's equipment.
Meanwhile, the former head of the CIA and National Security Agencytold the Australian Financial Review that he believes Huawei is a "significant security threat" to both the U.S. and Australia.
[Related: Huawei Enterprise Comes Out Swinging At Cisco, Others Over Their Lack Of Innovation]
These actions, which follow an October report by the U.S. Congress that found equipment from Huawei to be a potential security threat in the U.S., form a serious triangle of resistance to Huawei's telecom market expansion despite being the world's second-largest telecommunications provider.
In the U.K., the government this week said it is reviewing the security arrangements provided by the Cyber Security Evaluations Centre, known as the "Cell," in the wake of a June report by the Intelligence and Security Committee that found serious issues with how the Cell was managed.
The Cell in 2010 was set up and funded by Huawei as part of a 2005 agreement between it and British Telecom related to a government contract. All Cell personnel except its head, a former deputy director of Government Communications Headquarters, are from Huawei as well.
The BBC quoted a Cabinet Office spokesperson as saying that the government takes threats to its critical national infrastructure seriously, and that it has robust procedures in place to ensure confidence in U.K. telecommunications networks security.
"However, we are not complacent and as such we have agreed to the main recommendation of the report to conduct a review of Huawei's Cyber Security Evaluation Centre [the 'Banbury Cell'] to give assurance that we have the right measures and processes in place to protect UK telecommunications," the spokesperson was quoted as saying.
Meanwhile, in Australia, where Huawei is working to promote its telecom equipment as a safe offering from a company independent of the Chinese government, the Australian Financial Review on Thursday published an interview with Michael Hayden, the former head of the CIA and NSA, in which Hayden said he is certain Huawei supplied sensitive intelligence to China in his "professional judgment."
Hayden said Western intelligence agencies knew about Huawei's alleged clandestine activities. The company, at a minimum, had "shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with," the paper quoted him as saying.
Huawei has steadily maintained that the company is completely independent of the Chinese government, noting several times in the past that if that were not so, the company's business outside of China would be at risk.
A Huawei spokesperson said in a statement emailed to CRN that the company welcomes the U.K. Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee June report.
In the statement, the spokesperson called out a quote from the U.K. response: "Our work with Huawei and their UK customers gives us confidence that the networks in the UK that use Huawei equipment are operated to a high standard of security and integrity."
"Huawei supports the decision that the National Security Advisor should review the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre. Huawei shares the same goal as the UK government and the ISC in raising the standards of cyber security in the UK and ensuring that network technology benefits UK consumers. Huawei is open to new ideas and ways of working to improve cyber security," the spokesperson said.
Gary Fish, founder and CEO of FishNet Security, a Kansas City, Mo.-based solution provider specializing in networking security, said he doesn't partner with Huawei today, but not necessarily because of security concerns. Instead, Fish said, it's more a matter of customer demand.
"We tend to look at customers and what they are demanding and asking for, and they are not asking for that today," Fish said. "I don't know if the security threat is real or not with Huawei. We use a lot of hardware and software that's not manufactured here in the U.S. Products are innovated all over the world, so, to me, it doesn't necessarily make them not secure."
Glenn Conley, president and CEO of Metropark Communications, a St. Louis-based solution provider and Huawei partner, said there seems to be a lot of posturing going on around Huawei.
"It could be simply deflection at the highest levels pointing fingers at Huawei in the face of more of Western spying efforts that may come out," Conley said. "Huawei is an easy target [because] they have a .com after their name and not a .gov. I can't speak for the people in the U.K., but the Huawei equipment seems to be very sound, with no back doors to Beijing."
http://www.crn.com/news/networking/240158556/huawei-pressed-in-the-uk-australia-on-telecom-cybersecurity-issues.htm?pgno=1
Similar threads
