US Lawmakers Urge Canada to Snub China's Huawei in Telecoms(reuters.com)
reuters.com
US Lawmakers Urge Canada to Snub China's Huawei in Telecoms
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei-tech-canada/u-s-lawmakers-urge-canada-to-snub-chinas-huawei-in-telecoms-idUSKCN1MM2FO
77 comments
I would not trust a single word coming out of these politicians. they are basically spreading fud.
we should buy NSA made routers instead.
Given all the animosity between the countries at the moment (Made in America, NAFTA 2, Bombardier, boarder delays, the Saudi fiasco, pending legalization of pot) now is not the best time for the US to urge Canada to impose any new restrictions. Canada laughed the last time the US described it as a national security threat (aluminum/steel tariffs) it will laugh at this one too.
Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now. Canada's cell networks are much more regulated than those of the US. They cover vastly larger areas and are much more expensive to access. The insertion of national security politics will only slow progress.
Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now. Canada's cell networks are much more regulated than those of the US. They cover vastly larger areas and are much more expensive to access. The insertion of national security politics will only slow progress.
>>Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now.
In what way does Canada require improved cellular service? I'm nodding my head to the other points you've made but this one puzzles me. If you're talking about pricing, then I would agree there given more numerous and more transparent wireless competition in other countries.
Canada's mobile networks are generally comparable to advanced (but not cutting edge) cellular networks around the world.
In what way does Canada require improved cellular service? I'm nodding my head to the other points you've made but this one puzzles me. If you're talking about pricing, then I would agree there given more numerous and more transparent wireless competition in other countries.
Canada's mobile networks are generally comparable to advanced (but not cutting edge) cellular networks around the world.
Yes, in Toronto and Vancouver. But drop a random pin on a map of Canada and it is a different story. There are towns only 50km from downtown Vancouver that lack any reliable cell coverage. I've been involved in a few SAR events, at major tourist spots beside highways, where the lack of cell coverage was a huge issue.
Canada's distances also mean that there remain a great many communities without wired internet services. Satellite is very expensive, and increasingly difficult at higher latitudes. Cellular-based broadband is the only realistic option.
http://www.comparecellular.com/images/assets/coverage-maps/b...
Setting aside the north, take a look at how much of BC lacks any real cell coverage.
Canada's distances also mean that there remain a great many communities without wired internet services. Satellite is very expensive, and increasingly difficult at higher latitudes. Cellular-based broadband is the only realistic option.
http://www.comparecellular.com/images/assets/coverage-maps/b...
Setting aside the north, take a look at how much of BC lacks any real cell coverage.
There's huge demand for cellular-based broadband. I wasn't aware that TELUS' wireless coverage in the Interior was so bad, and slightly surprised that there isn't more negative news coverage when TELUS and Bell tout "national coverage". I'm sure the CRTC's roaming caps[1] will change some of the profitability scenarios per set of cell-sites.
I will note that Saskatchewan (through SaskTel) seems to cover the province quite well even outside of Regina and Saskatoon.
Re. cellular-based broadband - while there is huge demand in rural regions, the pricing is challenging. Basically, cellular-based "broadband" usually operates at a loss, but at least it's a loss that more carriers are willing to shoulder, in (small) part due to the CRTC's renewed call for action to review "universal broadband service"[2] in 2019.
[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-99.pdf
[2] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm
I will note that Saskatchewan (through SaskTel) seems to cover the province quite well even outside of Regina and Saskatoon.
Re. cellular-based broadband - while there is huge demand in rural regions, the pricing is challenging. Basically, cellular-based "broadband" usually operates at a loss, but at least it's a loss that more carriers are willing to shoulder, in (small) part due to the CRTC's renewed call for action to review "universal broadband service"[2] in 2019.
[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-99.pdf
[2] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm
Large swaths within an hour of downtown Vancouver had 6Mbps ADSL or highly asymmetrical cable as their only option until ~2012-2013.
I get the conflict, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't possibly still be in Canada's best interest.
Basing the response on school yard type diplomacy would be unwise.
Basing the response on school yard type diplomacy would be unwise.
Canada's best interests are different than those of the US. Improved Canada-Chinese relations are much more of a priority as Canada looks for new markets. Security takes a back seat to trade as their top trading partner (US) becomes more and more erratic.
> Canada's best interests are different than those of the US.
Not really. Canada's economy can be described as trade with the US and some other stuff.
Not really. Canada's economy can be described as trade with the US and some other stuff.
The problem is that the US government has stated it considers Canada as the enemy.
The correct response is for Canada to remove its dependence on the US. The behavior of the current US government basically destroys their “soft power” for a very long time - who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them? How much of a sweet deal will countries be willing to give the US in treaties anyway?
I suspect the current behavior of the us administration is going to have very long term consequences - the biggest being a long term reduction in global influence as countries (like Canada) seek to reduce their dependence.
I say this with the assuredness of a random commenter on HN ;)
The correct response is for Canada to remove its dependence on the US. The behavior of the current US government basically destroys their “soft power” for a very long time - who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them? How much of a sweet deal will countries be willing to give the US in treaties anyway?
I suspect the current behavior of the us administration is going to have very long term consequences - the biggest being a long term reduction in global influence as countries (like Canada) seek to reduce their dependence.
I say this with the assuredness of a random commenter on HN ;)
> The correct response is for Canada to remove its dependence on the US
This would be reckless. Geography dictates the U.S. and Canada will be major trading partners. Population, resource distribution and topography dictate, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will be the big sister in that relationship.
Smarter would be to hang low and wait for fairer weather.
> who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them?
I agree. Since "the U.S. has not withdrawn from a trade agreement since 1866" [1], there is disagreement over whether Trump can unilaterally kill NAFTA or if he requires Congressional approval [2][3]. Either way, it's not a good show.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/in...
[2] https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/trump-boa...
This would be reckless. Geography dictates the U.S. and Canada will be major trading partners. Population, resource distribution and topography dictate, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will be the big sister in that relationship.
Smarter would be to hang low and wait for fairer weather.
> who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them?
I agree. Since "the U.S. has not withdrawn from a trade agreement since 1866" [1], there is disagreement over whether Trump can unilaterally kill NAFTA or if he requires Congressional approval [2][3]. Either way, it's not a good show.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/in...
[2] https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/trump-boa...
You misunderstand, I don’t mean Canada should cutoff trade with the US, I mean that it should be working on ensuring that the US is not as critical to its economy.
That is the sensible thing for Canada to do. No one wants their economy to be dependent on a country that from one election to the next may choose to divorce itself from reality, or at a moments notice label long term allies as being “the enemy”.
Of course Canada will continue to try to maintain trade, but they recognize that in the long term that is no longer a safe option...
That is the sensible thing for Canada to do. No one wants their economy to be dependent on a country that from one election to the next may choose to divorce itself from reality, or at a moments notice label long term allies as being “the enemy”.
Of course Canada will continue to try to maintain trade, but they recognize that in the long term that is no longer a safe option...
> it should be working on ensuring that the US is not as critical to its economy
Installing Huawei telecom equipment would be a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" way of achieving economic independence. I agree that Canada should work to diversify its economy. But diversifying away from the U.S., instead of working to improve the relationship, would be silly given the geographic, cultural and linguistic proximity between the nations.
Installing Huawei telecom equipment would be a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" way of achieving economic independence. I agree that Canada should work to diversify its economy. But diversifying away from the U.S., instead of working to improve the relationship, would be silly given the geographic, cultural and linguistic proximity between the nations.
Look at the behavior of the current administration, and ask if you'd try to work with them to improve a relationship that the administration deliberately made deteriorate.
You can argue that there are many reasons that Canada has for maintaining that relationship, but the same thing applies to the US, and it threw that away. Basically: given the behavior of the US, what reasonable country would want to continue to have their economy be dependent on it?
Also, while Huwei may be producing compromised equipment, what reason does Canada have for trusting US provided equipment? Or any other country -- every country that manufactures any network, radio, satellite, or other technology has a spy agency. All of those spy agencies would happily take an opportunity to compromise each others equipment. The "correct" course of action is to design your secure systems to assume non -trustworthy network hardware.
Mostly don't buy cheap equipment from anyone, because it seems they always ship on day 1 with software that's 2 years old that somehow has like 3 years of vulnerabilities :D
You can argue that there are many reasons that Canada has for maintaining that relationship, but the same thing applies to the US, and it threw that away. Basically: given the behavior of the US, what reasonable country would want to continue to have their economy be dependent on it?
Also, while Huwei may be producing compromised equipment, what reason does Canada have for trusting US provided equipment? Or any other country -- every country that manufactures any network, radio, satellite, or other technology has a spy agency. All of those spy agencies would happily take an opportunity to compromise each others equipment. The "correct" course of action is to design your secure systems to assume non -trustworthy network hardware.
Mostly don't buy cheap equipment from anyone, because it seems they always ship on day 1 with software that's 2 years old that somehow has like 3 years of vulnerabilities :D
Actually, this is exactly why Canada should be looking for other markets. The US has clearly indicated to us that we can no longer rely on them for trade. It's long overdue, but now is the time we need to act in reducing our dependence on the US, since clearly one dumbass can impact our economy in ways that one dumbass shouldn't be able to.
If you think the US is erratic, check out how China bullies its neighbours and always seeks to control the infrastructure of the countries that supply it with raw materials it needs.
The way I see it, the US may be erratic, but it's still a country with the rule of law. China is a massive unknown because it's a dictatorship run by competent but unconstrained (and therefore sketchy and unpredictable) group of people. Even worse now that Xi is going to a full single-man dictatorial model.
The way I see it, the US may be erratic, but it's still a country with the rule of law. China is a massive unknown because it's a dictatorship run by competent but unconstrained (and therefore sketchy and unpredictable) group of people. Even worse now that Xi is going to a full single-man dictatorial model.
>If you think the US is erratic, check out how China bullies its neighbours and always seeks to control the infrastructure of the countries that supply it with raw materials it needs.
I see you've ignored nearly the entire Middle East and what the USA has done almost everywhere in the world throughout its history.
I see you've ignored nearly the entire Middle East and what the USA has done almost everywhere in the world throughout its history.
USA doesn't go around giving loans to build infrastructure in countries that have no realistic way of paying them back, then leasing said infrastructure back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_Po...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_Po...
> I see you've ignored nearly the entire Middle East and what the USA has done almost everywhere in the world throughout its history.
Everywhere in the world throughout its history? That's a pretty amusing statement, given the US barely left its shores for the first 140 years of its history. The US didn't even have a serious standing military until after WW1, and more realistically just before WW2.
Demonstrably the US has done dramatically more good in the world than it has ill. In the era of the US superpower, the world has never been better off. It's just as absurd to ignore the vast good the US has been responsible for, as it is to ignore the mistakes it has made.
Everywhere in the world throughout its history? That's a pretty amusing statement, given the US barely left its shores for the first 140 years of its history. The US didn't even have a serious standing military until after WW1, and more realistically just before WW2.
Demonstrably the US has done dramatically more good in the world than it has ill. In the era of the US superpower, the world has never been better off. It's just as absurd to ignore the vast good the US has been responsible for, as it is to ignore the mistakes it has made.
prolikewh0a(1)
I see the Chinese mobile market as a serious threat to US cellular markets & phone manufacturers, something USA (with lobbying & special interest money) & its trade war is likely trying to prevent with propaganda campaigns. I would like to see CA laugh this off.
>"grave concerns”
I just want to know what these grave concerns are. If they are such a big deal then the details should be released to the public.
I just want to know what these grave concerns are. If they are such a big deal then the details should be released to the public.
> the details should be released to the public
Details have been released. The Wikipedia page provides a good compendium of Huawei's intellectual property rights abuses, espionage and security concerns, workforce treatment issues and sanctions violations [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
Details have been released. The Wikipedia page provides a good compendium of Huawei's intellectual property rights abuses, espionage and security concerns, workforce treatment issues and sanctions violations [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
What's this latest trend about evil huawai lately? If there is something to report then they should report it.
> If there is something to report then they should report it.
There has been a lot of reporting on Huawei's sketchiness. The Wikipedia page [1] is a good starting point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
There has been a lot of reporting on Huawei's sketchiness. The Wikipedia page [1] is a good starting point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
Propaganda during a trade war with China.
Apart from U.S pressure, another point to consider is that Huawei is widely believed to have conducted large scale theft of Nortel IP in the 2000s. It's crazy that Canada would think of rewarding such conduct with important telecom contracts.
edit: https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-...
edit: https://business.financialpost.com/technology/nortel-hacked-...
Only one person has made that accusation: Brian Shields, and he does so without any evidence.
> Only one person has made that accusation: Brian Shields, and he does so without any evidence
There was a lot of evidence of the hacking [1][2]. What was unsubstantiated was Brian Shields' belief that "the extensive cyberattacks on Nortel contributed to its downfall" [3].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203363504577187...
[2] https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400242,00.asp
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel#Hackers_had_free_access...
There was a lot of evidence of the hacking [1][2]. What was unsubstantiated was Brian Shields' belief that "the extensive cyberattacks on Nortel contributed to its downfall" [3].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203363504577187...
[2] https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400242,00.asp
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel#Hackers_had_free_access...
It really isn't a good time for the US to "urge" Canada to do anything. There is no surplus of good will between the countries after Trump's bullying and insults. Canada can make its own decisions.
This is the same Canada they're trying to start a trade wea war wor with, right?
[deleted]
Based on Huawei's existing presence in Ottawa a couple years ago, I'd say that this ship has already sailed. Canada isn't going to kick out any of the companies that scooped up bits of what used to be Nortel.
Note that this isn't about kicking Huawei out of the existing network deployments (2G where it still exists, 3G & 4G/LTE). This is about not letting Huawei compete for 5G network infrastructure bids.
I understand the national security concerns, but it should be noted that real incremental costs will be incurred if Canada agrees, especially for Canadian carriers who already have Huawei RAN[1], Packet Core[2] or GiLAN[3] (or worse, an entirely E2E bundled deal) infrastructure in place servicing their current needs.
Huawei almost always has the lowest RFP bid prices, and through a combination of factors generally ends up on most RFx vendor short-lists. Their success is undeniable, and scares many.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_access_network
[2] http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-e...
[3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/reference_arch...
I understand the national security concerns, but it should be noted that real incremental costs will be incurred if Canada agrees, especially for Canadian carriers who already have Huawei RAN[1], Packet Core[2] or GiLAN[3] (or worse, an entirely E2E bundled deal) infrastructure in place servicing their current needs.
Huawei almost always has the lowest RFP bid prices, and through a combination of factors generally ends up on most RFx vendor short-lists. Their success is undeniable, and scares many.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_access_network
[2] http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-e...
[3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/reference_arch...
Is there any reason info showing this company to be any more evil than any other China based cell company? Just curious why they seem to be targeted more than others.
Given the cozy relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese telecoms, it's probably best to avoid any Chinese made electronics for infrastructure, if possible. Chinese military agents are even implicated in attacks on Western companies to help their own corporations.
The scale at which companies work with the government and how the government funds companies makes it very hard to trust any Chinese company.
The scale at which companies work with the government and how the government funds companies makes it very hard to trust any Chinese company.
Fair points, but you can search/replace Chinese with American and the statements are arguably as true. From cozy relationships to telecoms, to compromising electronics for their own ends, to engaging in industrial espionage for US organizations (including against companies of allies -- the CIA and NSA are both engaged in economic espionage, and share useful information with corporate partners).
It is a bit strange seeing the US yelling the warnings about China when really they just gained a peer doing the same things.
It is a bit strange seeing the US yelling the warnings about China when really they just gained a peer doing the same things.
> you can search/replace Chinese with American and the statements are arguably as true
Not really. American companies can and do defy the American executive branch. Rule of law and an independent judiciary are things in America. They are not in China.
Not really. American companies can and do defy the American executive branch. Rule of law and an independent judiciary are things in America. They are not in China.
Rule of law and an independent judiciary are things in America
A rule of law that is profoundly flexible to achieve whatever the US government wants to do. From secret courts and directives that you can't talk about, to the wholesale capture of telco traffic (with telco complicity, of course). And that rule of law allows the massive US intelligence establishment to do virtually anything internationally (which is the context that we're talking about), from sabotaging systems, performing economic espionage and stealing trade secrets, to murder.
Virtually the same trappings and illusions of controls exist in China as well.
Both countries do the same thing, and to an international country are interchangeable. The overall context to these discussions, however, is that the US is somehow good and China is somehow bad, so it's different.
A rule of law that is profoundly flexible to achieve whatever the US government wants to do. From secret courts and directives that you can't talk about, to the wholesale capture of telco traffic (with telco complicity, of course). And that rule of law allows the massive US intelligence establishment to do virtually anything internationally (which is the context that we're talking about), from sabotaging systems, performing economic espionage and stealing trade secrets, to murder.
Virtually the same trappings and illusions of controls exist in China as well.
Both countries do the same thing, and to an international country are interchangeable. The overall context to these discussions, however, is that the US is somehow good and China is somehow bad, so it's different.
> Virtually the same trappings and illusions of controls exist in China as well
Secret courts are a shame. Secret directives, on the other hand, can be compatible with the rule of law and an independent judiciary, provided they're lawfully authorized and can be challenged in a court.
At the end of the day, a private citizen (or foreign government) can challenge the U.S. government on equal grounds in a fair court. That is not the case in China.
Secret courts are a shame. Secret directives, on the other hand, can be compatible with the rule of law and an independent judiciary, provided they're lawfully authorized and can be challenged in a court.
At the end of the day, a private citizen (or foreign government) can challenge the U.S. government on equal grounds in a fair court. That is not the case in China.
> Secret courts are a shame. Secret directives, on the other hand, can be compatible with the rule of law and an independent judiciary, provided they're lawfully authorized and can be challenged in a court.
I presume you also forgot to add this before challenged in a court...
> ..., whistleblowers are protected, and can be ...
You see, because that's the thing with secret directives, they're redacted from the public eye. The only way we get visibility into them isn't with FOIA requests, it's with whistleblowers who feel the government is doing things wrong, and if they're not protected, they rarely come forward.
I presume you also forgot to add this before challenged in a court...
> ..., whistleblowers are protected, and can be ...
You see, because that's the thing with secret directives, they're redacted from the public eye. The only way we get visibility into them isn't with FOIA requests, it's with whistleblowers who feel the government is doing things wrong, and if they're not protected, they rarely come forward.
This attitude represents a fundamental misunderstanding about how China works and Chinese attitudes. For westerners, it is hard to understand how interconnected governments and businesses are in mainland China. China is the most opaque business world we can imagine and Chinese military intelligence has deep connections to Chinese businesses. It paints itself as a free market economy but it is highly controlled and authoritarian.
The West has this to some extent, but not at the same scale or connections. US companies are far more independent.
The West has this to some extent, but not at the same scale or connections. US companies are far more independent.
> As a Canadian citizen, I urge Canada to snub Huawei too.
I'm not a fan of Huawei, but I am a fan of retaining our sovereignty. If the US wants the privilege of suggesting how we should run our country, then perhaps they should work on their end to repair the bilateral relationship. Currently, my vote is to tell them "Mind your own damned business."
I'm not a fan of Huawei, but I am a fan of retaining our sovereignty. If the US wants the privilege of suggesting how we should run our country, then perhaps they should work on their end to repair the bilateral relationship. Currently, my vote is to tell them "Mind your own damned business."
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18220722 and marked it off-topic.
Asshole next door: "Hey, your house is on fire."
You: "Mind your business!"
Stopping the use of Chinese telecon for core infrastructure is a matter of national security, not a trade war.
You: "Mind your business!"
Stopping the use of Chinese telecon for core infrastructure is a matter of national security, not a trade war.
who's goals are more aligned with yours? neighbors to the south who you share a lot in common with or a totalitarian government on the other side of the planet.
Nations don't have friends, they only have interests.
Being overly dependent on "America First, Always" technology doesn't serve the Canadian interests.
Being overly dependent on "America First, Always" technology doesn't serve the Canadian interests.
You realize that there exist major infrastructure-hardware players outside of the US or China, right? Ericsson (of Sweden), for example.
Trump specifically says he’s in it just for America. The old order of the friendly superpower is dead. NAFTA renegotians were evidence of that.
In his own words, "At least Canada knows where I stand,". The message has been received loud and clear up North.
So I’d say they’re probably equal. At least China hasn’t tried overtly to collapse our auto sector.
In his own words, "At least Canada knows where I stand,". The message has been received loud and clear up North.
So I’d say they’re probably equal. At least China hasn’t tried overtly to collapse our auto sector.
Textbook nonsequiter, well done.
> If the US wants the privilege of suggesting how we should run our country, then perhaps they should work on their end to repair the bilateral relationship
This article is based on the comments of two Senators, one a Republican who ran against Trump and the other a Democrat, asking Canada to do something. Given how close the American and Canadian economies are, it is of American concern that information which crosses north of the border might become vulnerable to Chinese exfiltration.
This article is based on the comments of two Senators, one a Republican who ran against Trump and the other a Democrat, asking Canada to do something. Given how close the American and Canadian economies are, it is of American concern that information which crosses north of the border might become vulnerable to Chinese exfiltration.
Sure, just saying, Canada should review any orders it makes towards telecom companies (full disclosure, I started and ran a telecom company from 2001 until 2010) from entirely a Canadian perspective and not account for any input from the US; doubly so given how the US government (like it or not, Trump is their president and reflects their government internationally) has treated Canada over the last year and a half.
Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Uh, not my intent. I'm trying to illustrate that Canada has command and control regulations regarding telecommunication providers that operate in the country, and there are requirements for Canadian control. If equipment were factored into such decisions, that could go a way into resolving this problem. Though it'd probably create others. And for completeness, it's still Canada's decision to make, the rhetoric the US has been sending our way has left many of us feeling like the once good friend and neighbour, has decided that we're a threat to their national security.
EDIT: Clicked too soon.
EDIT: Clicked too soon.
Don't reject good advice just because whoever gave the advice doesn't have your best interest in mind. I've good some good advice from some otherwise awful people. Sometimes following the advice furthered their ends more than mind, but it was still the best course of action for me.
The advice, and any specific allegations, should have been given much more discretely. Even in the best of times, Canadians don't like American politicians infringing on our sovereignty.
American politicians calling the Chinese security threats just means they are in the same club as ourselves as well as our Mexican and European friends. Senators Rubio and Warner will accomplish little by insulting our guests.
Huawei's bid deserves to be considered and evaluated... By Canadians, on our terms, rather than foreigners with their own agenda.
American politicians calling the Chinese security threats just means they are in the same club as ourselves as well as our Mexican and European friends. Senators Rubio and Warner will accomplish little by insulting our guests.
Huawei's bid deserves to be considered and evaluated... By Canadians, on our terms, rather than foreigners with their own agenda.
There are many people in the world who lack tact, but yet have good ideas at times. It would be to your benefit to learn to get useful things from such people. (I believe that group includes everybody at some point in their lives)
When we evaluate the bid, I'm sure we'll weigh previous occasions when Chinese firms placed spyware in hardware/firmware.
I'll point out we haven't rejected the advice.
What Canadians on this thread have rejected, is Yankee carpetbagging.
I'll point out we haven't rejected the advice.
What Canadians on this thread have rejected, is Yankee carpetbagging.
Sure, doesn't hurt to listen, but at the end of the day, that's just being polite. A courtesy. The decision is still entirely Canada's, and shouldn't be influenced by US congress critters.
I think the saying is "cutting your nose to spite your face"?
All the security concern about Huawei may actually make its devices more secure in the long run. The heightened scrutiny by various players not only deter Chinese government from conducting blatant hacks, but also expose many conventional vulnerabilities that pose a greater threat for most businesses. For example, UK intelligence agency has a joint testing center with Huawei to vet its source code and hardware design. It's really hard to find this kind of capable and independent party to perform such comprehensive security audit.
> All the security concern about Huawei may actually make its devices more secure in the long run
This makes no sense. Nobody argues for purchasing a product based on a manufacturer's history of security failings.
This makes no sense. Nobody argues for purchasing a product based on a manufacturer's history of security failings.
I didn’t say this is a reason to buy Huawei. I’m suggesting a side effect of security concern is improved security. To make secure software/hardware, it is really valuable to have people of different backgrounds to take a look. This is what many other venders do not have.
Urge what now?
Do you know who makes the rules over what I can and can't buy?
Yes, that's right. Me.
U.S. Lawmakers don't get a say, sorry. I'll buy what I want, thanks.
The arrogance is astounding.
Do you know who makes the rules over what I can and can't buy?
Yes, that's right. Me.
U.S. Lawmakers don't get a say, sorry. I'll buy what I want, thanks.
The arrogance is astounding.
Stupid question, but aren't essentially all routers made in China? Maybe not neccessarily by natively Chinese companies, but for sure in Chinese factories owned 51% by Chinese citizens? Or are there recommendable domestic options? What's the difference security-wise between a Huawei device and, say, a Motorola device made in China?
I've used a Huawei LTE router from a German telco before and thought it was a pretty solid product, but given the recent headlines I find it hard to judge what's a legitimite concern and what's just "red scare".
I've used a Huawei LTE router from a German telco before and thought it was a pretty solid product, but given the recent headlines I find it hard to judge what's a legitimite concern and what's just "red scare".
It's hard to tell... China's government has definitely been involved in cyber-attacks to further business interests throughout the world. They've developed better soft skills and fostered a lot of relationships to that end. Some of these actions are entirely natural, others completely unscrupulous. It really depends and it's hard to be objective.
In the end, I think it's been very ill advised for the U.S. Govt to allow so much of its' essential communications and other technical infrastructure to be delivered by foreign entities given domestic capability. I think we're only now starting to realize how much risk has been levied and how dangerous this has really been. Not just to domestic businesses, but to our own security.
The advice to Canada isn't necessarily bad, however I'm not sure that I would trust U.S. entities any further given the amount of cyber-warfare coming from all sides, and spying all around. Larger countries should definitely work to at least form their own assembly plants for most goods if they're able to support that. It can at least minimize a lot of the risks.
In the end, I think it's been very ill advised for the U.S. Govt to allow so much of its' essential communications and other technical infrastructure to be delivered by foreign entities given domestic capability. I think we're only now starting to realize how much risk has been levied and how dangerous this has really been. Not just to domestic businesses, but to our own security.
The advice to Canada isn't necessarily bad, however I'm not sure that I would trust U.S. entities any further given the amount of cyber-warfare coming from all sides, and spying all around. Larger countries should definitely work to at least form their own assembly plants for most goods if they're able to support that. It can at least minimize a lot of the risks.
China is creepy and Huawei is not reliable.
But, for Canada, being overly dependent on the US is much worse. I don't want this country to become a Northern Puerto Rico.
But, for Canada, being overly dependent on the US is much worse. I don't want this country to become a Northern Puerto Rico.
> China is creepy
Nationalistic slights will get you banned here. Please don't do this again.
Edit: looks like we had to warn you about this once before.
Nationalistic slights will get you banned here. Please don't do this again.
Edit: looks like we had to warn you about this once before.