Google reportedly arguing cutting Huawei off from Android threatens US security(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Google reportedly arguing cutting Huawei off from Android threatens US security
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18656163/google-huawei-android-security-ban-claims
164 comments
>> but about Google losing their mobile market share.
Under current policy, threats to US industry are threats to national security. That is why Canadian steel was listed as a national security threat. They aren't quiet about these things any more. Cutting into US market share is now openly described as a security threat.
Under current policy, threats to US industry are threats to national security. That is why Canadian steel was listed as a national security threat. They aren't quiet about these things any more. Cutting into US market share is now openly described as a security threat.
So then, any country that wants to become more economically competitive against the US (even Canada) is a national security threat?
The parent is drastically exaggerating.
The US dropped its steel tariffs against Canada and imports ~$325 billion in goods from Canada (equal to ~19% of their economy). Canadian steel represents <2% of that.
Meanwhile the US is going to allow Infineon to buy Cypress, an important US semiconductor company.
The US will have roughly a $21.x trillion economy at the end of 2019. The scale of non-China tariffs is entirely trivial, meaningless. So far there has been very little in the way of actual hits and targeting from tariffs - on the grounds of national security or otherwise - outside of the trade conflict with China.
The US dropped its steel tariffs against Canada and imports ~$325 billion in goods from Canada (equal to ~19% of their economy). Canadian steel represents <2% of that.
Meanwhile the US is going to allow Infineon to buy Cypress, an important US semiconductor company.
The US will have roughly a $21.x trillion economy at the end of 2019. The scale of non-China tariffs is entirely trivial, meaningless. So far there has been very little in the way of actual hits and targeting from tariffs - on the grounds of national security or otherwise - outside of the trade conflict with China.
[deleted]
ELI5 please?
By the numbers, the only country that has actually taken a hit with tariffs is China (in case you missed the news, Mexico bent over pretty quickly).
The response misses the point that the US is saber-rattling to keep other countries in line. China is the only country to actually challenge the US, so now the US has to show everyone who’s boss.
The response misses the point that the US is saber-rattling to keep other countries in line. China is the only country to actually challenge the US, so now the US has to show everyone who’s boss.
> Under current policy, threats to US industry are threats to national security.
Sure, maybe policy-wise, but common-sense wise the argument doesn't hold up at all. Google's minimal loss from business with Huawei is nothing compared to Huawei compromising the 5G infrastructure of the US.
Sure, maybe policy-wise, but common-sense wise the argument doesn't hold up at all. Google's minimal loss from business with Huawei is nothing compared to Huawei compromising the 5G infrastructure of the US.
The only question is: Do the people/companies who will be affected by compromised 5G have enough agency and bribe money to out do Google?
I don't understand how those things are related. What does forcing Huawei to fork Android on their cell phones in China and Europe (by totally forbidding them from doing business with Google) have to do with 5G infrastructure in the US?
If the US is so concerned, can't they just ban them from 5G infrastructure? Why is it necessary to fork Android?
If the US is so concerned, can't they just ban them from 5G infrastructure? Why is it necessary to fork Android?
Under current policy, threats to US industry are threats to national security
Certain industries. Usually industries that are critical to the functioning of the economy, or that have been concentrated in hostile or semi-hostile nations without alternatives in friendly countries.
Policy, like everything else in life, is a lot more complicated than the internet likes to portray.
Certain industries. Usually industries that are critical to the functioning of the economy, or that have been concentrated in hostile or semi-hostile nations without alternatives in friendly countries.
Policy, like everything else in life, is a lot more complicated than the internet likes to portray.
The idea that reliance on Canadian steel represents a threat to US national security is not plausible. Canada isn't hostile to the US, and it would be inconceivable for Canada to cut off steel exports to the US in a critical moment. The Trump administration is quite transparently misusing the phrase "national security" to justify measures meant to force trade concessions from other countries, including American allies.
The argument, as I understand it, is this: US national security interests are seriously harmed if the US steel industry is severely hampered.
Note that I’m not attempting to assert a truth, moral, or effectiveness value for this argument.
Note that I’m not attempting to assert a truth, moral, or effectiveness value for this argument.
That argument requires one to assume that Canada might withhold shipments of steel to the United States at some critical moment. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether steel comes from the US or Canada. As long as Canada doesn't shut down shipments, the United States' access to steel is secure, even if 100% of it comes from Canada.
The argument that Canada might cut off US access to steel is not plausible. The fact that the Trump administration is using the phrase "national security" to try to wring economic and political concessions out of Canada is transparent.
The argument that Canada might cut off US access to steel is not plausible. The fact that the Trump administration is using the phrase "national security" to try to wring economic and political concessions out of Canada is transparent.
Trump us using security measures because that's all he has there's nothing real about it. All other tariffs require Congress to act, hopefully we'll remove this power before it's abused again.
[deleted]
But Huawei would forfeit their non-China market share.
More likely just US and maybe Five Eyes.
Almost all other countries seem to be okay with Huawei and any potential Chinese security threat.
Almost all other countries seem to be okay with Huawei and any potential Chinese security threat.
The real problem is American apps like YouTube, Instagram or Snapchat. Any platform without those is stillborn.
The particular one is YouTube as there is a large back catalogue of stuff.
WhatsApp is the one you needed to mention, if you have that then you are locked into a phone number based service.
Apps can go to PWA mode, if you think of the business case for a third party app going PWA then it is a good one - ease of adoption as no need to install.
If Huawei wanted to they could host videos and offer better monetisation to content creators. If you get notifications that your favourite channels have new stuff does it matter what logo is at the top of the page?
If the deal was a good one to upload the entire back catalogue to HuaweiTube then it could work. People already are used to uploading their blog post to half a dozen different places, no reason why people could not do this with video painlessly on Huawei 5G.
People who release stuff early on Patreon could be customers for this.
If HuaweiTube also allowed you to do images - as per Instagram and messaging all in one neat service (treating images as single frame videos and audio as video with no pictures) then it could be a better service.
I think that WhatsApp is the rub, people can go to the web version of Facebook on a Huawei phone, they don't need the app.
WhatsApp is the one you needed to mention, if you have that then you are locked into a phone number based service.
Apps can go to PWA mode, if you think of the business case for a third party app going PWA then it is a good one - ease of adoption as no need to install.
If Huawei wanted to they could host videos and offer better monetisation to content creators. If you get notifications that your favourite channels have new stuff does it matter what logo is at the top of the page?
If the deal was a good one to upload the entire back catalogue to HuaweiTube then it could work. People already are used to uploading their blog post to half a dozen different places, no reason why people could not do this with video painlessly on Huawei 5G.
People who release stuff early on Patreon could be customers for this.
If HuaweiTube also allowed you to do images - as per Instagram and messaging all in one neat service (treating images as single frame videos and audio as video with no pictures) then it could be a better service.
I think that WhatsApp is the rub, people can go to the web version of Facebook on a Huawei phone, they don't need the app.
People have tried to replace YouTube for decades. The platform is too sticky. Even if you solve the immense issue of content streaming at scale, ad monetisation is Google's kingdom, charging for content doesn't work, donations don't work, etc.. it's just not feasible. Their web/mobile apps are also light heads ahead.
Regardless of the shitty things YouTube's done, there's a reason it's still so popular.
We also really need to preserve the back catalogue. There's so much invaluable stuff only on YouTube.
Regardless of the shitty things YouTube's done, there's a reason it's still so popular.
We also really need to preserve the back catalogue. There's so much invaluable stuff only on YouTube.
Nobody has forked out a billion dollars for paying people to make YouTube grade videos, if Huawei had a rival service and booked every single ad slot then I think that they could either lose a billion dollars or foster a new platform.
YouTube isn't massively integrated into other services, if you had one platform that did email, video hosting, Patreon things and still image things then I think it could work.
If the on-boarding is with your device, as per how it is with Android then why could it not work?
The goal posts change all the time. Because MicroSoft failed at it doesn't mean they would fail if they did the same today. Or if some other player did.
YouTube isn't massively integrated into other services, if you had one platform that did email, video hosting, Patreon things and still image things then I think it could work.
If the on-boarding is with your device, as per how it is with Android then why could it not work?
The goal posts change all the time. Because MicroSoft failed at it doesn't mean they would fail if they did the same today. Or if some other player did.
Especially WhatsApp, I would say. It is the absolute standard for communication in much of the world.
That’s surprising. Nobody has yet asked me for my WhatsApp contact details and thereby forced me to create an account. (Germany, previously UK).
That is surprising. Whatsapp is used by 81% of messaging app users in Germany[1] and almost 70% of Britons[2].
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
Ditto. I've never seen WhatsApp in the wild. I've been asked if I have iMessage and Venmo more times than I can remember, but nobody has ever asked me if I have WhatsApp.
Whatsapp is used by 81% of messaging app users in Germany[1] and almost 70% of Britons[2].
It hasn't caught on as much in the US.
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
It hasn't caught on as much in the US.
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
January of 2018. At the time, Zuckerberg said WhatsApp had 1.5 billion monthly active users.
Zuckerberg also counts both of my cats as active Facebook users.
That hurts my head, having separate chat history and ads for your cats.
Messaging platforms are very regional. From your mention of Venmo (which is US-only) I assume you're American. WhatsApp has it's popularity outside of the US.
I've not once in my life had someone ask for an iMessage, and Venmo I've only heard about online. The last time I sent an SMS was probably a decade ago.
Currently I live in LINE-land. 90% of my communication is on LINE. Among friends abroad, everyone has Facebook messenger but it's nobody's preferred method, rather a fallback. WhatsApp is popular among friends in Europe (Sweden/Spain). Don't know anyone who's mentioned Telegram/Signal.
I've not once in my life had someone ask for an iMessage, and Venmo I've only heard about online. The last time I sent an SMS was probably a decade ago.
Currently I live in LINE-land. 90% of my communication is on LINE. Among friends abroad, everyone has Facebook messenger but it's nobody's preferred method, rather a fallback. WhatsApp is popular among friends in Europe (Sweden/Spain). Don't know anyone who's mentioned Telegram/Signal.
Its mostly used in third world countries. South Africa, Brazil, ect. Doesn't seem to have caught on that much in the first world, from what I've read.
Whatsapp is used by 81% of messaging app users in Germany[1] and almost 70% of Britons[2].
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
1. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
2. https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
Really? Everyone uses WhatApp over here (Germany).
I've been casually following incidents of a number of governments blocking WhatsApp/Facebook to disrupt organizers of protests: every single time Telegram usage blooms literally overnight as it's harder to block. WhatsApp is not as sticky as I thought, if the entire network graph is forced off.
I would be surprised if the average European would buy an Android-fork phone with no Google Play.
It depends on what common apps are available. Only option I see for Huawei to get those is by leveraging the Chinese market to incentivize devs to make a google free version of their apps. This way they should have enough critical mass to make a port worth it. Offering a version of those internationally should be just a small additional step. This obviously would require ruling party of China to open up their user base to outside companies. But they would still have a lot of control through the app store, and if established successful this control could even extend beyond their borders. I wonder if there is a way for Huawei to actually get politicians on board with something like that...
But National Security is a club everyone swing.
Huawei is not an advertising company. They could use a completely different approach to openness and privacy and eat Google's lunch in the current climate... if they were wise and not trying to be authoritarian or controlling. And considering Google basically privatized Linux, I would not see this as being a bad outcome... to make Android a Linux based system open source and community driven again.
As over time Google is planning on abandoning its Linux roots and moving it to what was called Fuschia.
As over time Google is planning on abandoning its Linux roots and moving it to what was called Fuschia.
> if they were wise and not trying to be authoritarian or controlling
Well, that IF is how you end your own argument.
In China, most of us don't give a deep thought on privacy and personal .* (personal freedom, personal rights etc). Because of this, I don't believe people here would build an OS to protect people's privacy and many other rights. You just don't have the base and market to do that here.
I think even if HongmengOS is not just a smoke, the best they could do is probably just a "better" Android "knock off". So I personally don't give that OS any high hope.
But I do have a little hope of course. As a Chinese myself, my hope is that their OS can be fully open sourced, so tech communities can learn how to build a OS from them, and maybe later fork it to fit people's own needs (for example: add privacy focused features).
My another hope is, maybe in the future, more and more (small) phone manufacturers will start to build phones that could run multiple OSs, like what Purism is trying to do. That way user will have more freedom in terms of choice.
Don't know which of my hope is likely to come true, we'll see. (I guess Purism is a better bet because they are making progress as we speak)
Well, that IF is how you end your own argument.
In China, most of us don't give a deep thought on privacy and personal .* (personal freedom, personal rights etc). Because of this, I don't believe people here would build an OS to protect people's privacy and many other rights. You just don't have the base and market to do that here.
I think even if HongmengOS is not just a smoke, the best they could do is probably just a "better" Android "knock off". So I personally don't give that OS any high hope.
But I do have a little hope of course. As a Chinese myself, my hope is that their OS can be fully open sourced, so tech communities can learn how to build a OS from them, and maybe later fork it to fit people's own needs (for example: add privacy focused features).
My another hope is, maybe in the future, more and more (small) phone manufacturers will start to build phones that could run multiple OSs, like what Purism is trying to do. That way user will have more freedom in terms of choice.
Don't know which of my hope is likely to come true, we'll see. (I guess Purism is a better bet because they are making progress as we speak)
For any critical tech platform, though, has there ever been more than 2 major players? I would argue that everyone after the top two is such a huge way behind that they really only serve niche markets. Look at Windows Phone, which eventually ended up being a pretty nice OS. MS couldn't pay people enough, quite literally, to get developers to build for it. Any "non-Google Android" clone is going to have to deal with the way developers are deep into Google Play Services, at least in the West, and that will be extremely difficult to displace.
And yet China has parallel search engines, chat platforms, e-commerce platforms and social networks. A billion people make a big enough target audience to enable a lot of things.
Rofl, none of the Chinese copies are better than their originals. The only reason there are Chinese variants is protectionism a la firewall.
I disagree with your first sentence in its sweeping overgeneralization. The second sentence seems somewhat true but there's a reason why eBay failed in China: they ported their English website over without consideration for the idiosyncrasies if the chinese market and netizen.
These two sentence are also not intrinsically linked. Just because there has been protectionism does not mean that the China apps are automatically worse. In fact, a bunch of features of weibo and we chat have found their way to Twitter and WhatsApp. (One example are voice messages which were a core part of wechat from the start. They were important to get people in rural areas or older people to use the app, due to the difficulties of typing Mandarin, especially dialects.)
These two sentence are also not intrinsically linked. Just because there has been protectionism does not mean that the China apps are automatically worse. In fact, a bunch of features of weibo and we chat have found their way to Twitter and WhatsApp. (One example are voice messages which were a core part of wechat from the start. They were important to get people in rural areas or older people to use the app, due to the difficulties of typing Mandarin, especially dialects.)
Voice messages have been around since before smartphones, come on.
There is little reason to expect companies that have had multi-national success not to succeed in China if it weren't for protectionism; while there are certainly examples of poor execution, you'd have to be blind to think that was the reason for every such case, or even a significant portion thereof.
There is little reason to expect companies that have had multi-national success not to succeed in China if it weren't for protectionism; while there are certainly examples of poor execution, you'd have to be blind to think that was the reason for every such case, or even a significant portion thereof.
That's not entirely true. WeChat in many ways is more impressive than whatever US equivalent is for a Chinese audience. And Didi executed far better than Uber without protectionism being in play. It's nontrivial to execute in a foreign culture to your own.
Indeed, Chinese apps have diverged significantly from what's used in the West. There were a bunch of Chinese copycat apps at first, but some of them have been supplanted by new and very different apps. Everyone in China used to be on a Facebook copycat called "Ren Ren," but it's gone the way of MySpace, and everyone is now on WeChat, which has no equivalent in the West.
> WeChat, which has no equivalent in the West
Facebook has been very transparent recently about their intent to ‘fix’ this.
Didi may have executed better than Uber, but there was pretty significant informal protectionism going on, as well.
Maybe. But really displacing any of those services is maybe 10,000 developers away... we already have F-droid what if you co-opted it to publish commercial apps for no fees. What if you set 10,000-20,000 developers to work on an open source fork that was run by the Linux foundation? What if you made a real effort to make it truly open source and free? Would people jump ship? It's possible. No one has tried or had the resources to try. And Google becomes more and more entrenched.
“Publish commercial apps for no fees”?
Processing payments costs real money. Who should subsidize it to make it free for publishers?
Processing payments costs real money. Who should subsidize it to make it free for publishers?
Let's see 3% payment cost vs 30% fees... If they wanted to just charge the transaction cost. And yes there are cost centers and profit centers. If you want to eat the cost of something you could do it. And once it becomes successful maybe you start raising fees slowly to catch up to that 30%. Many strategies are possible.
And are the employees suppose to work for free?
Yes.
Blackberry in mobile OS share had it for a while, though I'm sure you'd argue that it doesn't exist anymore, but you had asked about ever, not just right now. Video game consoles are another example, with the Nintendo, Xbox, Playstation.
In just about every market there exists two natural economic leaders - the quantity (a.k.a. cost) and the quality leaders. There are market leaders other than the natural two who can arise through other means, such as ecosystem lock-in, tech patents, brand exclusivity, or some other method.
Blackberry in mobile OS share had it for a while, though I'm sure you'd argue that it doesn't exist anymore, but you had asked about ever, not just right now. Video game consoles are another example, with the Nintendo, Xbox, Playstation.
In just about every market there exists two natural economic leaders - the quantity (a.k.a. cost) and the quality leaders. There are market leaders other than the natural two who can arise through other means, such as ecosystem lock-in, tech patents, brand exclusivity, or some other method.
Chinese companies always have the Chinese market where they can grow until they're important enough that people want to be compatible with them.
It doesn't actually work that way. If it did, Baidu would have half the global market for search. Instead, they've stagnated after maxing out in China and Google has continued to expand globally.
Ctrip (20 years old) doesn't have a consequential business outside of China, where Booking and others are dominant. Ctrip's business is firewalled inside of China.
Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram dominate globally, while eg WeChat has stagnated outside of China. WeChat's growth started to flatline about three years ago. Within another year they'll go entirely flat on growth (stalled at just over a billion monthly active users, most of which are in China and a few other countries).
Spotify and Apple own the global streaming music business. China's competitors are heavily domestic.
Netflix, Amazon and Disney (+Hulu) will own the global streaming movies & TV business.
Almost nobody outside of China listens to or can understand Chinese music, movies or TV shows. Outside of China it's a small market for their media content. This is a fundamental that can't be overcome, the world is not going to learn Mandarin.
On video gaming, China can never compete because there's a vast amount of content the Chinese Government will simply never allow. They barely allow their own video game giants like Tencent to function properly within China, it's a nightmare. The gaming segment will continue to be dominated by the US, Europe and Japan. As in the other cases, China's gaming companies are hamstrung by their system. The best they can do is buy foreign assets and try to operate them outside of China.
When it comes to social, China can never compete due to their extreme speech, cultural & political controls. There can be no global Chinese equivalent of Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, et al. China's regressive approach is so extreme they've banned joke apps - that one ban probably wipes out a third of the social media landscape in terms of usage. You never have to worry about a Chinese company competing with you if you're eg Imgur or Twitter.
There is some potential for shopping & goods trade, however even mighty Alibaba has struggled in their quest for expanding outside of the domestic Chinese market.
Ctrip (20 years old) doesn't have a consequential business outside of China, where Booking and others are dominant. Ctrip's business is firewalled inside of China.
Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram dominate globally, while eg WeChat has stagnated outside of China. WeChat's growth started to flatline about three years ago. Within another year they'll go entirely flat on growth (stalled at just over a billion monthly active users, most of which are in China and a few other countries).
Spotify and Apple own the global streaming music business. China's competitors are heavily domestic.
Netflix, Amazon and Disney (+Hulu) will own the global streaming movies & TV business.
Almost nobody outside of China listens to or can understand Chinese music, movies or TV shows. Outside of China it's a small market for their media content. This is a fundamental that can't be overcome, the world is not going to learn Mandarin.
On video gaming, China can never compete because there's a vast amount of content the Chinese Government will simply never allow. They barely allow their own video game giants like Tencent to function properly within China, it's a nightmare. The gaming segment will continue to be dominated by the US, Europe and Japan. As in the other cases, China's gaming companies are hamstrung by their system. The best they can do is buy foreign assets and try to operate them outside of China.
When it comes to social, China can never compete due to their extreme speech, cultural & political controls. There can be no global Chinese equivalent of Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, et al. China's regressive approach is so extreme they've banned joke apps - that one ban probably wipes out a third of the social media landscape in terms of usage. You never have to worry about a Chinese company competing with you if you're eg Imgur or Twitter.
There is some potential for shopping & goods trade, however even mighty Alibaba has struggled in their quest for expanding outside of the domestic Chinese market.
All those made in China apps have a hard time penetrating non Chineese markets. But they could if they want to, like TikTok which is popular in India too.
Before smartphones monopolised the market, there was a good variety of handsets to choose from (still is if you look at things from a hardware perspective).
Same was true for micro computers all throughout the 80s and up to mid 90s.
Games consoles, cars, TVs, laptop OEMs, enterprise cloud hosting providers, etc.
So plenty of counter examples.
Same was true for micro computers all throughout the 80s and up to mid 90s.
Games consoles, cars, TVs, laptop OEMs, enterprise cloud hosting providers, etc.
So plenty of counter examples.
> For any critical tech platform, though, has there ever been more than 2 major players?
Here's a partial list of major server operating system vendors over the years: IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Novell, Microsoft ...
Everyone one of those has existed since at least the 1990s and it's rare for the largest individual vendor to have more than 30% share at any given time.
The key to maintaining this is common interfaces. You write against POSIX or Qt or Java and it runs on most systems even though they're all different vendors.
But all of that stuff comes from the little guys. All the Unix vendors got together to create POSIX because then developers get access to more users by targeting POSIX than Win32, even though Windows at the time had more market share than any individual Unix. Sun creating Java allowed developers with mostly Windows customers to write their Windows applications in Java, which then gave them Mac and a dozen other platforms for free, including Sun Solaris, which the developer probably wouldn't have targeted on its own.
The phone hardware vendors could take a page out of that book and create their own modern POSIX for mobile to replace the Google-specific APIs on Android. Heck, they would only need one implementation of it, the same as all the old Unix vendors have largely standardized on Linux today.
Here's a partial list of major server operating system vendors over the years: IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Novell, Microsoft ...
Everyone one of those has existed since at least the 1990s and it's rare for the largest individual vendor to have more than 30% share at any given time.
The key to maintaining this is common interfaces. You write against POSIX or Qt or Java and it runs on most systems even though they're all different vendors.
But all of that stuff comes from the little guys. All the Unix vendors got together to create POSIX because then developers get access to more users by targeting POSIX than Win32, even though Windows at the time had more market share than any individual Unix. Sun creating Java allowed developers with mostly Windows customers to write their Windows applications in Java, which then gave them Mac and a dozen other platforms for free, including Sun Solaris, which the developer probably wouldn't have targeted on its own.
The phone hardware vendors could take a page out of that book and create their own modern POSIX for mobile to replace the Google-specific APIs on Android. Heck, they would only need one implementation of it, the same as all the old Unix vendors have largely standardized on Linux today.
Google is terrified of anyone forking Android. Some malicious actor might remove all their tracking code. Maybe even disable background location permission and app ads.
A true national security risk of the highest caliber
A true national security risk of the highest caliber
What are you talking about? I don't find it all creepy when Google Maps Timeline sends me my month in review without me asking for it. They just like to keep track of all the wonderful places I visit.
Google can probably tell me how many bowel movements I had last week although I haven't gotten any such emails from Google Toilet Timeline.
Yet.
Google can probably tell me how many bowel movements I had last week although I haven't gotten any such emails from Google Toilet Timeline.
Yet.
Why is nobody talking about Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo? They have majority of Indian market. Together with Huawei they might create an alliance and create a Chinese fork of Android.
If they give access to intel data to other countries then it can be a competitive offer compared to Google Android.
If they give access to intel data to other countries then it can be a competitive offer compared to Google Android.
I am currently in China on holiday and saw a Windows 7 screen on one of the monitors in a train station which reminded me that the world's entire IT infrastructure is mostly powered by Windows, Apple or Linux, which is all entirely in the hands of the US. Android and iOS are the most wide spread mobile operating systems, so basically the US being in control of the world's entire software in an ever growing digital world. This plus the revelations of the NSA spying on everyone in the world, trying to introduce secret backdoors in US vendors software and having a huge impact on which cryptographic algorithms are being NIST approved and therefore distributed and implemented across most programming languages makes the US a MUCH MUCH larger threat to any other country's national security. Particularly when the US is also known to fabricate news like countries having secret mass destruction weapons which somehow can never be found after a complete destruction of a country through unprovoked war. Yet the news headlines are somehow worried about Huawei?
I'm not saying it's unjustified, but I like to put things into perspective when observing geopolitical developments, their impact and what really is going on..
The truth is that China will inevitably overtake the US as the largest economy in the world soon and that pisses the Americas off.. so now they want to stall the Chinese economy as much as possible, but being in China right now and seeing how they are literally not dependent on anyone but themselves I can promise that all efforts are wasted. I'm not a huge fan of the totalitarian communist government in China, but so far I have not felt threatened by them, whereas I feel my personal freedom and privacy has been violated constantly by the US and US companies.
I'm not saying it's unjustified, but I like to put things into perspective when observing geopolitical developments, their impact and what really is going on..
The truth is that China will inevitably overtake the US as the largest economy in the world soon and that pisses the Americas off.. so now they want to stall the Chinese economy as much as possible, but being in China right now and seeing how they are literally not dependent on anyone but themselves I can promise that all efforts are wasted. I'm not a huge fan of the totalitarian communist government in China, but so far I have not felt threatened by them, whereas I feel my personal freedom and privacy has been violated constantly by the US and US companies.
China is dependent on exports to keep the economy moving along.
In terms of legal precedent this is pretty shaky ground. In any other context this would sound pretty far fetched.
Would we allow a US company to circumvent sanctions on selling technology to refine nuclear material to Iran on the grounds that they might blow themselves up and poison US allies or Americans abroad?
That's the legal context I'd view this argument in.
Would we allow a US company to circumvent sanctions on selling technology to refine nuclear material to Iran on the grounds that they might blow themselves up and poison US allies or Americans abroad?
That's the legal context I'd view this argument in.
This is a little bit different than Iran. The US government specifically does not want Iran to have access to nuclear technology, so preventing US companies from providing technology to Iran is in itself the goal.
In the case of Huawei, the US government's concerns mostly seem to be about Huawei possibly spying on the devices they sell. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any particular basis for concern about allowing them to use US software such as android. Therefore, from the perspective of the security threat that is the putative basis for blacklisting Huawei, the fact that Huawei is now blocked from using Android is merely an incidental side effect.
(Of course, if the real goal is to hold Huawei hostage as a means to negotiate a trade deal, then threatening to destroy their smartphone business by blocking them from using Android may be precisely what is really intended.)
In the case of Huawei, the US government's concerns mostly seem to be about Huawei possibly spying on the devices they sell. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any particular basis for concern about allowing them to use US software such as android. Therefore, from the perspective of the security threat that is the putative basis for blacklisting Huawei, the fact that Huawei is now blocked from using Android is merely an incidental side effect.
(Of course, if the real goal is to hold Huawei hostage as a means to negotiate a trade deal, then threatening to destroy their smartphone business by blocking them from using Android may be precisely what is really intended.)
I know its not a great comparison but that's part of my point. The context and legal precedent in this arena mostly applies to arms and aid, not consumer products.
This is different from selling nuclear technology to Iran. Android is open source (albeit not in the "real open source" way) and available to everyone. Anyone can fork it at its own will. Forking Android by a non-US company would give up the control of the OS on phones, which would threaten the US security.
It will give up control of the OS on phones that won't be sold in the US anyway. I'm not clear on how that will threaten the US security? Though it will no doubt threaten Google's profits and ability to benefit from their surveillance- and censorship-enabled search engine for the Chinese market.
Our tech companies should not be lining up to lick the boots of a hostile economic power. I can't even believe this is socially acceptable and am relieved it's starting to become legally unacceptable.
Our tech companies should not be lining up to lick the boots of a hostile economic power. I can't even believe this is socially acceptable and am relieved it's starting to become legally unacceptable.
>It will give up control of the OS on phones that won't be sold in the US anyway. I'm not clear on how that will threaten the US security?
That's pretty straight forward, someone from the US exchanges information with someone who has a Huawei phone who is outside the US, someone who has imported a Huawei phone, or someone who is travelling / working in the US and has one. Which given that it's the number 1/2 phone maker in the world, is pretty likely
That's pretty straight forward, someone from the US exchanges information with someone who has a Huawei phone who is outside the US, someone who has imported a Huawei phone, or someone who is travelling / working in the US and has one. Which given that it's the number 1/2 phone maker in the world, is pretty likely
If it would give up control of the OS on phones anyway and it would not threaten the US security, why did the US ban Google from providing Android updates to Huawei? It is the same logic why the US government bans Huawei, unless the US government ban Huawei for other reasons.
Huawei does not play by the rules of other companies in the U.S. market. They steal our tech and sell it back to us for pennies on the dollar. China has been allowed to get away with this shit for decades and now we're supposed to feel sorry for them?
Huawei needs to be completely shut out of the U.S. market and Google should be ashamed for working with China. This is a net benefit to U.S. security.
Huawei needs to be completely shut out of the U.S. market and Google should be ashamed for working with China. This is a net benefit to U.S. security.
These accusations are unfounded and unsubstantiated. If they steal your tech, you should sue them in court. We, the US and other nations, run by the laws. You have all the rights to sue whoever steals your tech. Android is open source and available to everyone including Huawei. Huawei has every right to use it. Blatantly accusing someone of stealing with no evidence leads to libel and defamation.
Huawei provides a bounty program for stolen trade secrets: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/from-boun...
Many U.S. companies have been afraid to report Chinese IP theft due to fears about retaliation and stock price: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...
Years back when I was still freelancing, I worked with a U.S. firm who sold specialized lightweight cases for a popular sporting product. Their Chinese manufacturer stole the tech, ignored the patent, sold the same product to the U.S. market at half the price and put my client out of business.
These claims are not unfounded or unsubstantiated. There has been an ongoing pattern of abuse from China for decades and until recently nobody in our government was giving a shit about it.
Many U.S. companies have been afraid to report Chinese IP theft due to fears about retaliation and stock price: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...
Years back when I was still freelancing, I worked with a U.S. firm who sold specialized lightweight cases for a popular sporting product. Their Chinese manufacturer stole the tech, ignored the patent, sold the same product to the U.S. market at half the price and put my client out of business.
These claims are not unfounded or unsubstantiated. There has been an ongoing pattern of abuse from China for decades and until recently nobody in our government was giving a shit about it.
> You have all the rights to sue whoever steals your tech
If they are not under your jurisdiction, there's a limit on what can be done. Even if you win, your tech is already in other people's hands.
> We, the US and other nations, run by the laws.
On paper. Other nations don't do as much enforcement as you think – if at all.
If they are not under your jurisdiction, there's a limit on what can be done. Even if you win, your tech is already in other people's hands.
> We, the US and other nations, run by the laws.
On paper. Other nations don't do as much enforcement as you think – if at all.
It threatens Google's domination.
Huawei will bring their own OS and Android will loose market share because of it.
Huawei will bring their own OS and Android will loose market share because of it.
Also, data on Google's server is subject to US laws.
When you Balkanize android, so that part of the market uses Huawei's AOSP fork, you've got less data that's could be compelled on the grounds of US national security.
That would be a more convincing national security argument.
That would be a more convincing national security argument.
And this is probably their real argument to Trump administration.
The probability that Google will argue for preventing major fragmentation of the Android ecosystem is exactly 100%.
That seems like it’s also an argument for blocking competition. If you think that Google is more able to secure phones than any other entity, and you think that any compromise to phone security is a national security threat, that implies that nobody but Google should be allowed to make phone operating systems.
I’m a bit dubious that Google is actually making that argument, given how obvious the consequences are.
I’m a bit dubious that Google is actually making that argument, given how obvious the consequences are.
I think their claim might be a bit more nuanced. They are the original vendor of the Software, and have a special status that allows them to have an expertise on the OS that other third parties do not.
Agreed, but that claim intersects in an interesting way with phone OS vendors who also make their own hardware. I’m not sure Google wants to go down that path either.
Man, now I really do want to see the original source material.
Man, now I really do want to see the original source material.
They're also a U.S. company and subject to U.S. laws.
A large portion of Google's implicit argument (that they'll never make to the public, but are probably making to the Trump administration) is that it's better for the dominant mobile phone operating system to be written by an American company with American values, subject to U.S. laws, than have Huawei fork it and potentially end up with the dominant mobile operating system controlled by a Chinese company with Chinese values and subject to Chinese laws.
A large portion of Google's implicit argument (that they'll never make to the public, but are probably making to the Trump administration) is that it's better for the dominant mobile phone operating system to be written by an American company with American values, subject to U.S. laws, than have Huawei fork it and potentially end up with the dominant mobile operating system controlled by a Chinese company with Chinese values and subject to Chinese laws.
The Google I use, for search at least says:
"the Services are provided by Google Ireland Limited (“Google”), a company incorporated and operating under the laws of Ireland"
to quote the terms of service. Providing any of my data to USA secret service would appear to be espionage, probably treason, and against EU law. I'll bet NSA have access to everything Google know (internally) about me.
The Chinese government probably have all details of my interactions with baidu or Ali Express too.
They look the same to me in this respect, only the Chinese aren't telling my government who they're allowed to do business with.
"the Services are provided by Google Ireland Limited (“Google”), a company incorporated and operating under the laws of Ireland"
to quote the terms of service. Providing any of my data to USA secret service would appear to be espionage, probably treason, and against EU law. I'll bet NSA have access to everything Google know (internally) about me.
The Chinese government probably have all details of my interactions with baidu or Ali Express too.
They look the same to me in this respect, only the Chinese aren't telling my government who they're allowed to do business with.
Last I checked, Android was largely written by the engineers in buildings 40-43, 1600 Amphitheater Parkway, Mountain View, CA, USA. They're employees of Google, Inc, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc, which is a U.S. corporation registered in the State of Delaware.
When you access services provided by Google Ireland Limited, you are dealing with a different entity, which last I checked controls a whole lot of money and employs some finance people, customer support, and SREs. Google Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google Inc, and contracts with the latter to provide services to Europeans using software owned by Google Inc. Google Ireland follows EU and Irish law. All of this is irrelevant to Huawei, whose contract is with Google Inc to license technology within Android. It is also irrelevant to the U.S. government, who likely gets all the intelligence on Europeans that they need through their Five Eyes partnership with GCHQ, and is far more concerned about potential Chinese, Russian, or Middle Eastern adversaries than they are about Europeans anyway.
When you access services provided by Google Ireland Limited, you are dealing with a different entity, which last I checked controls a whole lot of money and employs some finance people, customer support, and SREs. Google Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google Inc, and contracts with the latter to provide services to Europeans using software owned by Google Inc. Google Ireland follows EU and Irish law. All of this is irrelevant to Huawei, whose contract is with Google Inc to license technology within Android. It is also irrelevant to the U.S. government, who likely gets all the intelligence on Europeans that they need through their Five Eyes partnership with GCHQ, and is far more concerned about potential Chinese, Russian, or Middle Eastern adversaries than they are about Europeans anyway.
This false equivalence is so ridiculous.
China is a dictatorship, has no independent judiciary/media, routinely kidnaps Chinese people (not even citizens) in foreign countries, is running the world's 're-education' centre where millions of journalists, Muslims etc are all being detained and is a police state unless anything in history.
US maybe stealing your data. But at least you can go to a court or deal with the media to advance your cause without fear of retribution.
China is a dictatorship, has no independent judiciary/media, routinely kidnaps Chinese people (not even citizens) in foreign countries, is running the world's 're-education' centre where millions of journalists, Muslims etc are all being detained and is a police state unless anything in history.
US maybe stealing your data. But at least you can go to a court or deal with the media to advance your cause without fear of retribution.
That's why I didn't say what you're claiming, I said the effect on me - neither in the USA nor in China - is equivalent AFAICT.
China and USA are both doubtless spying on my country's population and accessing my PII/data as part of that.
I'm pretty sure my legal recourse against NSA is identical to that against the Chinese secret services, zilch.
Let's be realistic. Trump wants us to stop using Huawei _and_ use USA company produced comms equipment. A consideration of that is then USA can do what they're claiming China is doing. AFAICT you have a legal framework in place to enable just that.
What's most incredible to me is that GCHQ haven't endorsed the apparent false claims, which actually gives me some hope about UK (but equally could be meta-games on post-Brexit trade deals; or false flags; or whatever).
China and USA are both doubtless spying on my country's population and accessing my PII/data as part of that.
I'm pretty sure my legal recourse against NSA is identical to that against the Chinese secret services, zilch.
Let's be realistic. Trump wants us to stop using Huawei _and_ use USA company produced comms equipment. A consideration of that is then USA can do what they're claiming China is doing. AFAICT you have a legal framework in place to enable just that.
What's most incredible to me is that GCHQ haven't endorsed the apparent false claims, which actually gives me some hope about UK (but equally could be meta-games on post-Brexit trade deals; or false flags; or whatever).
> Trump wants us to stop using Huawei _and_ use USA company produced comms equipment
No US company is producing wireless comms equipment though - it's all European and Chinese
No US company is producing wireless comms equipment though - it's all European and Chinese
This seems very plausible to me.
> that they'll never make to the public, but are probably making to the Trump administration
I would love to be a fly on the wall where the actual trade negotiation strategies are being considered. There is a very popular and simplistic notion that this trade war is nothing more than uninformed and random actions on behalf of the whims of a delusional, unintelligent President, that there are no "adults" involved whatsoever. I suspect the reality is very much different than that.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/china-japan-lighth...
As China figures out how to deal with Robert Lighthizer, US President Donald Trump’s top trade negotiator, Beijing has turned to an unexpected rival for advice – Japan.
A diplomatic source who has dealt with Lighthizer said Chinese officials and academics have reached out in recent months to foreign diplomats and former officials of American trading partners for wisdom on handling the US trade representative.
The irony of China looking to its neighbor and rival Japan for insight has been brought about by the pivotal role Lighthizer played in the US-Japan trade battles of more than three decades ago, with severe consequences for Japan.
“Lighthizer is tough and relentless in negotiations,” the source said. “Some Chinese officials and experts are looking for advice on how to deal with [him].”
As former US President Ronald Reagan’s deputy trade chief in the 1980s, Lighthizer negotiated two dozen trade agreements with foreign nations on a range of commodities, from steel to farm products.
When Japan’s trade surplus with the US was sparking a confrontation between the two countries, the former international trade lawyer pressured Japan to reduce steel and auto exports to the US by restricting its shipments of electronic and agricultural products with punitive tariffs and quotas.
Washington also launched a series of trade investigations against Japan, leading to the US dollar’s depreciation against the Japanese yen.
Japan’s economy went into a decade-long decline after an attempt to boost domestic consumption through the lowering of interest rates triggered a bubble economy built on inflated real estate and stock market prices that ultimately collapsed.
I would love to be a fly on the wall where the actual trade negotiation strategies are being considered. There is a very popular and simplistic notion that this trade war is nothing more than uninformed and random actions on behalf of the whims of a delusional, unintelligent President, that there are no "adults" involved whatsoever. I suspect the reality is very much different than that.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/china-japan-lighth...
As China figures out how to deal with Robert Lighthizer, US President Donald Trump’s top trade negotiator, Beijing has turned to an unexpected rival for advice – Japan.
A diplomatic source who has dealt with Lighthizer said Chinese officials and academics have reached out in recent months to foreign diplomats and former officials of American trading partners for wisdom on handling the US trade representative.
The irony of China looking to its neighbor and rival Japan for insight has been brought about by the pivotal role Lighthizer played in the US-Japan trade battles of more than three decades ago, with severe consequences for Japan.
“Lighthizer is tough and relentless in negotiations,” the source said. “Some Chinese officials and experts are looking for advice on how to deal with [him].”
As former US President Ronald Reagan’s deputy trade chief in the 1980s, Lighthizer negotiated two dozen trade agreements with foreign nations on a range of commodities, from steel to farm products.
When Japan’s trade surplus with the US was sparking a confrontation between the two countries, the former international trade lawyer pressured Japan to reduce steel and auto exports to the US by restricting its shipments of electronic and agricultural products with punitive tariffs and quotas.
Washington also launched a series of trade investigations against Japan, leading to the US dollar’s depreciation against the Japanese yen.
Japan’s economy went into a decade-long decline after an attempt to boost domestic consumption through the lowering of interest rates triggered a bubble economy built on inflated real estate and stock market prices that ultimately collapsed.
Do Huawei phones even receive that many updates? Google just "makes available" the updates - they don't update Huawei's phones themselves. And many of Huawei's phones don't get updates for long after release either.
By Google's own logic like 95+% of Android phones could be considered a national security risk, because only a small percentage actually receives patches in time or at all.
By Google's own logic like 95+% of Android phones could be considered a national security risk, because only a small percentage actually receives patches in time or at all.
While full OS updates are rare and usually delayed(this is not specific to Huawei but the market as a whole), I do receive roughly once per month security updates that "integrate Google security patches" on my P10 with Android 9
this is in fact the exact argument used by AT&T and the government repeatedly during its monopoly. See The Idea Factory- the heads of AT&T and Bell Labs had "secret schedules" where they attended meetings at the NSA, Pentagon, etc, regularly and shared internal details so that the intel agencies could use the phone system to maintain security.
that google is taking on the AT&T mantle should be no surprise.
that google is taking on the AT&T mantle should be no surprise.
Is there anything that US gains from cutting off Huawei?
Looking "tough on China" ahead of what will be another very bitter election.
It has nothing to do with this. There is a lot of pressure on Huawei also coming from Australia and New Zealand as well which given our proximity to China are not trying to be tough on them at all.
I work in telco and can assure you that Huawei is a security concern especially given the changing landscape of technology (more complex, more containerised architectures) which allows for more attack vectors.
People keep forgetting that China is a dictatorship, has no independent judiciary/media and a long pattern of IP theft, hacking etc.
I work in telco and can assure you that Huawei is a security concern especially given the changing landscape of technology (more complex, more containerised architectures) which allows for more attack vectors.
People keep forgetting that China is a dictatorship, has no independent judiciary/media and a long pattern of IP theft, hacking etc.
Entities in the US/Europe have been trying to take down China for a long time, the excuses to do it will be manufactured if required.
Do you believe it is only for looks? No genuine and valid motives?
I'd definitely call that ("only for looks") the single most likely possibility by a good margin.
The US and China are ramping military purchases with each other in mind. So I’m sure the US at least partially made this decision based on the likelihood of a future war, or the higher probability of much more tense relations.
[deleted]
Leverage in trade negotiations would be the main benefit I see.
Huawei isn’t a threat to national security. Consumer computer software is not a threat to national security. This is a justification for a trade war the president and his advisors want to engage in.
I would say that consumer computer software is the biggest threat to any security.
Turns out that if you can compromise someone's phone, you have a window into everything that person does, sees, and hears; both online and off.
Turns out that if you can compromise someone's phone, you have a window into everything that person does, sees, and hears; both online and off.
It is a threat to national security if the device is constantly recording surroundings and sending data back to Huawei who in turn hands it over to Chinese intelligence. That's obviously far fetched but it's technically possible.
And other countries have security concerns with Huawei besides US so this isn't just about the trade war.
And other countries have security concerns with Huawei besides US so this isn't just about the trade war.
Do you think there's a phone (model) that's immune to Chinese intelligence once they set they are interested in recording your surroundings? I'll accepts the 5G security arguments, but the handset angle is a absurd as all phones have porous security. NSA hasn't suddenly shifted it's offensive/defensive posture to my knowledge.
They are not solely a consumer, or even cell phone manufacturer. This is not about phones, as much as Google would want us to think otherwise.
"Although the Financial Times’ sources don’t explicitly lay out Google’s argument, it’s not difficult to imagine how it would go."
That's hilarious, a fourth party in speculating about what might have been said in private as reported by a paywalled publication, you know: journalism!
That's hilarious, a fourth party in speculating about what might have been said in private as reported by a paywalled publication, you know: journalism!
FT doesn't generally play as loose with the rules as media for general consumption tends to. They've got a lot of credibility.
This looks like a case in point for providing greater control of the OS by the user. If users were allowed to block or kill processes and lockdown data away from apps, a lot of the threat [and google business model] would be mitigated.
Im wondering when we will move from ad block software to APP block software. In other threads- the "linux phone" seems to be coming along nicely, isnt that an android fork already, or a distro?
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-smartphone-operating-sys...
https://itsfoss.com/librem-linux-phone/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-android-the-... [2011]
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-smartphone-operating-sys...
https://itsfoss.com/librem-linux-phone/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-android-the-... [2011]
Phones are substantially more complicated than desktops. Linux doesn't even work decently enough on Laptops for a lot of developers. It's not going to be a pleasant experience on a phone for a normal user in the foreseeable future.
That's not the real issue though. A PC is standard. Back in the 90s, you could always put in a Linux boot disk or CD and it would always boot. You may not have any driver support and your display might be stuck in VESA mode, but it would at least boot.
ARM is not an architecture. Images have to be customized for every single device. Google has the power with the OHA to force all phones to use standard drivers, devicetree or UEFI (like Microsoft did), but they don't. Now we have 100s of forked kernels and no way to boot a mainline kernel on ARM devices (although PostmarketOS is trying to work on fixing this).
I wrote about this a while back:
https://penguindreams.org/blog/android-fragmentation/
ARM is not an architecture. Images have to be customized for every single device. Google has the power with the OHA to force all phones to use standard drivers, devicetree or UEFI (like Microsoft did), but they don't. Now we have 100s of forked kernels and no way to boot a mainline kernel on ARM devices (although PostmarketOS is trying to work on fixing this).
I wrote about this a while back:
https://penguindreams.org/blog/android-fragmentation/
THX 4 the URL, and the insightfullness re mobile handset.
They [mobiles] dont have to be more complex than desktops, and that is what is being solved here with linux based phones. a non baseband CPU solution removes a layer of complexity that is not required for the intended function of a phone [communicating with other people]
I might add, if linux doesnt work well for you then you can submit a ticket or write your own solution.
Nice story, but in reality google is afraid of a company making competing services using the Android OS.
That was my first thought when all these shenanigans went down. I think there is still an argument for security- we're currently well versed in android but that isn't the case for whatever closed source Huawei OS that comes out.
Huawei can still use Android. Android is open source software. What Huawei will need to design is their own app store and replacement for google services. Of course this would be very damaging to google.
The argument on the face of it appears to be rather flimsy. If Google is doing this on Huawei's behalf, I wonder if we're seeing a new Google emerge, one who is willing to go to bat for their partners.
If a Chinese vendor is a threat to US national security, does it mean that American vendors are threats to all other countries' security? It is easy to imagine how American company gives out important data from a phone of Chinese or Iranian government employee for example.
You don’t have to imagine, The Cloud Act directly passed this into law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act
It’s extremely hypocritical of the US to panic when other countries act the same, and sets up a direct and prominent precedent for all counties to ban American tech.
It’s extremely hypocritical of the US to panic when other countries act the same, and sets up a direct and prominent precedent for all counties to ban American tech.
> It’s extremely hypocritical of the US to panic when other countries act the same,
This is pretty disingenuous. You are ignoring a ton of history behind China, its authoritarian nature, and how Chinese companies are far more an extension of the PRC than US companies are of the US Government.
All companies are a threat to the national security of other countries so long as they are beholden to the government they are in. But as others have said, the severity of the threat changes drastically. You can be almost certain that Huawei, via the PRC, would compromise US 5G infrastructure given the chance. You might be reasonably more skeptical of a US company doing the same to another country.
Finally, your Wikipedia link contradicts your own post:
> [The CLOUD Act] provides mechanisms for the companies or the courts to reject or challenge these if they believe the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country the data is stored in.
In fact, there is nothing here that would lead one to believe that the companies can be forced to hand over data on citizens from other countries. The legislation here pertains to the data of US citizens.
This is pretty disingenuous. You are ignoring a ton of history behind China, its authoritarian nature, and how Chinese companies are far more an extension of the PRC than US companies are of the US Government.
All companies are a threat to the national security of other countries so long as they are beholden to the government they are in. But as others have said, the severity of the threat changes drastically. You can be almost certain that Huawei, via the PRC, would compromise US 5G infrastructure given the chance. You might be reasonably more skeptical of a US company doing the same to another country.
Finally, your Wikipedia link contradicts your own post:
> [The CLOUD Act] provides mechanisms for the companies or the courts to reject or challenge these if they believe the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country the data is stored in.
In fact, there is nothing here that would lead one to believe that the companies can be forced to hand over data on citizens from other countries. The legislation here pertains to the data of US citizens.
If we are taking a historical view, the US went through the whole cold war and came out as the winner after decades of spying, propaganda, meddling here and there, anything that could give an advantage.
All these mechanics are still there, those agencies are still running. I can’t imagine taking rose colored glasses and think the US and China are that different when the proverbial shit hits the fan.
All these mechanics are still there, those agencies are still running. I can’t imagine taking rose colored glasses and think the US and China are that different when the proverbial shit hits the fan.
If we are taking a historical view
We're not. People on HN like to rehash the past to bolster their arguments about the present, but they rarely mean anything.
It's like how any time someone mentions Chinese IP theft, someone bring up something about steam engines from 200 years ago. The sins of the fathers ought not be visited upon the sons.
We're not. People on HN like to rehash the past to bolster their arguments about the present, but they rarely mean anything.
It's like how any time someone mentions Chinese IP theft, someone bring up something about steam engines from 200 years ago. The sins of the fathers ought not be visited upon the sons.
Most intel people seem to admit that the US and certain EU nations use their spy agencies to bolster domestic companies. The US has been caught out repeatedly but do their best to hide it, France has been called out by a bunch of other countries as one of the worst offenders around. The Chinese are just shameless about it and couldn't are less what people think.
Since historical arguments don't work for you here's proof of Australia bugging one of the poorest nations on Earth in the midst of an oil trade deal and passing along the information to a huge. The minister in charge at the time now works for that company with a very lucrative salary.
The only reason we know this is because a high ranking agent first complained internally about limited resources being diverted away from anti-terror work in Indonesia. He then complained to the Intel Ombudsman and was again ignored. Then he went public. He's now had a trial going on for a decade, his lawyer is also being tried for taking on the case.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/prosecution-of-witne...
Since historical arguments don't work for you here's proof of Australia bugging one of the poorest nations on Earth in the midst of an oil trade deal and passing along the information to a huge. The minister in charge at the time now works for that company with a very lucrative salary.
The only reason we know this is because a high ranking agent first complained internally about limited resources being diverted away from anti-terror work in Indonesia. He then complained to the Intel Ombudsman and was again ignored. Then he went public. He's now had a trial going on for a decade, his lawyer is also being tried for taking on the case.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/prosecution-of-witne...
>The sins of the fathers ought not be visited upon the sons.
This idea only works if all parties believe in it. I don't think the majority of people on this planet believe groups should be able to go on economic crime sprees that affect large swathes of populations then allow rich offspring to live comfortably with zero economic consequences.
I can see why this would be a desirable outcome for some but this feedback loop needs to remain intact to stop shenanigans.
This idea only works if all parties believe in it. I don't think the majority of people on this planet believe groups should be able to go on economic crime sprees that affect large swathes of populations then allow rich offspring to live comfortably with zero economic consequences.
I can see why this would be a desirable outcome for some but this feedback loop needs to remain intact to stop shenanigans.
I think what happened 200 years ago is still relevant to the present (heck, 200 years ago we were full steam into colonialism and slavery, and no one would argue it has no lasting consequences anymore)
But my argument is not about distant past.
I think the US is not caught into widespread IT theft and other public scandals partly because it has experienced agencies with good operational knowledge.
And partly because no one has been pushing the US enough to get into overt intelectual “war” against a country, but I feel we’re getting closer everyday. The day a country gets enough ahead of the US, we’ll get back to a public “us vs them” stance with stealing IP from that country becoming basically a patriotic feat, because you know, they’re the “ennemy”.
But my argument is not about distant past.
I think the US is not caught into widespread IT theft and other public scandals partly because it has experienced agencies with good operational knowledge.
And partly because no one has been pushing the US enough to get into overt intelectual “war” against a country, but I feel we’re getting closer everyday. The day a country gets enough ahead of the US, we’ll get back to a public “us vs them” stance with stealing IP from that country becoming basically a patriotic feat, because you know, they’re the “ennemy”.
[deleted]
Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered. Huawei might be forced to insert backdoors, just as the US government has forced/pressured American companies to insert backdoors into their products. In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure.
After all we've learned about NSA spying, I find it amazing when Americans go on about Chinese spying, especially given that Huawei, as yet, has not been caught spying on its customers.
After all we've learned about NSA spying, I find it amazing when Americans go on about Chinese spying, especially given that Huawei, as yet, has not been caught spying on its customers.
Huawei would be reticent to include backdoors in their products, because they know that that would destroy their credibility overseas if discovered
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-...
In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure.
So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/vodafone-...
In that sense, Huawei is no different from an American company. It's simply a different government applying the pressure.
So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
Bloomberg's reporting on such issues is notorious. Just recall their report about SuperMicro. In the article you link above, Bloomberg calls a bug a "backdoor." Vodafone disputed Bloomberg's story, because there's a big difference between an unintentional vulnerability and an intentional backdoor.
> So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
The US should provide evidence for whatever claims it makes about Huawei. All there is, at the moment, is evidence-free innuendo. You don't use the power of the state to destroy a major company on the basis of pure speculation.
> So, it's OK to do it then? The U.S. should pretend they don't exist?
The US should provide evidence for whatever claims it makes about Huawei. All there is, at the moment, is evidence-free innuendo. You don't use the power of the state to destroy a major company on the basis of pure speculation.
I actually mixed this up with another claim of a backdoor (the bug).
The Bloomberg claim of a backdoor, which you linked, is even more absurd. The "backdoor" was Telnet, which Huawei used during the initial configuration of the Vodafone equipment. Vodafone said to Bloomberg, "There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that Huawei conceals backdoors in its equipment."
The Bloomberg claim of a backdoor, which you linked, is even more absurd. The "backdoor" was Telnet, which Huawei used during the initial configuration of the Vodafone equipment. Vodafone said to Bloomberg, "There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that Huawei conceals backdoors in its equipment."
If Chinese companies are an extension of the PRC government, then the USA government is an extension of American companies.
Every country is a national security threat for every other country. The only thing that changes is how severe that threat is.
the chinese government has a different kind of relationship with most of the big companies in china than the US companies have with the US government.
gonna drop this here.
https://blog.erratasec.com/2014/03/we-may-have-witnessed-nsa...
gonna drop this here.
https://blog.erratasec.com/2014/03/we-may-have-witnessed-nsa...
Of course. We already know that all major US corporations provide backdoor access to gov agencies through various programs(i.e PRISM)
Considering the layers of software and hardware I think any product of some level of complexity is a risk, period.
If Huawei forks Android and gets a "hybrid" of bad security phones.... don't let them sell phones there then.
This seems like a weird argument, I get the gist but it kinda focuses on an after effect that i'm not sure should wag the dog.
This seems like a weird argument, I get the gist but it kinda focuses on an after effect that i'm not sure should wag the dog.
This argument is stupid, self-centered, and entirely made up the author... "Without Google, Huawei's are more likely to have malware, and therefore important things might get leaked, and leaks are the most essential threat to national security as we all know."
No, common.. the reason Google thinks its a bad idea to block Android it's because the Chinese don't care. They just fork Android yes, and that's it. Congratulations, you brexited yourself out of the Smartphone-OS market in China. Where you once had integration and some influence, you are now removing yourself as a dependency.
No, common.. the reason Google thinks its a bad idea to block Android it's because the Chinese don't care. They just fork Android yes, and that's it. Congratulations, you brexited yourself out of the Smartphone-OS market in China. Where you once had integration and some influence, you are now removing yourself as a dependency.
It feels like such a tenuous argument you could argue the government should hand Google over to Apple to improve security ...
Besides, Huawei's phones were already banned in federal agencies and Pentagon since last year. So I'm really not sure what Google is trying to say with this "national security threat" at all.
The entire "national security" argument that the administration is making fails on this observation. Trump is effectively banning Huawei from selling Chinese people phones that contain American parts ... in order to protect American national security? The whole argument doesn't add up. It's obviously a tactic to force the Chinese government to yield in the trade talks, as Trump himself has openly stated.
many problems here:
a) why exactly is google qualified to comment on national security?
this either means they are verbally overstepping their bounds, know more than they should about secret+ programs, or are processing their vast data in a security-relevant way on the scope of a nation state
b) phones being hacked != compromised telecom infrastructure
c) if android fragmentation leads to less security on a national level, then by extension, google has monopoly or at least cartel level influence
probably more..
a) why exactly is google qualified to comment on national security?
this either means they are verbally overstepping their bounds, know more than they should about secret+ programs, or are processing their vast data in a security-relevant way on the scope of a nation state
b) phones being hacked != compromised telecom infrastructure
c) if android fragmentation leads to less security on a national level, then by extension, google has monopoly or at least cartel level influence
probably more..
> Step two: those Huawei phones with a forked version of Android are sold globally. They are less secure and get hacked.
Why those phones will be less secure and therefore easily hacked? Which kind of argument is that?
How a huawei phone with a forked android is any less secure than any 2-year old android phone from $randomanufacturer (not longer receiving any OS update at all)?
Why those phones will be less secure and therefore easily hacked? Which kind of argument is that?
How a huawei phone with a forked android is any less secure than any 2-year old android phone from $randomanufacturer (not longer receiving any OS update at all)?
Yes, Huawei phones can be less secure compared to a two-year old android phone that is running vanilla Android, because Huawei, and sometimes even Samsung, sometimes end up making modifications to the kernel that expose the entire device to userland hacks.
Google is trying to move Android to a more secure footing with Titan, Play Protect, verified boot, etc like ChromeOS. If Huawei becomes the dominant Android phone manufacturer, there is the possibility for things to be worse than they are today.
Google is trying to move Android to a more secure footing with Titan, Play Protect, verified boot, etc like ChromeOS. If Huawei becomes the dominant Android phone manufacturer, there is the possibility for things to be worse than they are today.
Might this answer your question?
> Huawei must raise 'shoddy' standards, says senior UK cybersecurity official
> GCHQ technical director says he hasn’t seen anything that reassures him company is taking necessary security steps
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/07/huawei-mu...
> Huawei must raise 'shoddy' standards, says senior UK cybersecurity official
> GCHQ technical director says he hasn’t seen anything that reassures him company is taking necessary security steps
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/07/huawei-mu...
Android isn't exactly known for being a paragon of security. The number of unpatched critical CVEs in the wild at any given moment is staggering. At worst this is a step sideways.
Sure thing, but at least Android is open source.
Huawei's drivers, which is what led GCHQ to probe into Huawei's code and write a rather uncharitable report on what their coding practices look like [1], are not. Admittedly, as members of the public we can only take their word for it that they found shoddy code by any reasonable standard. But if the latter is true and any indicator of how they'll maintain their own fork of Android, it's doesn't inspire much confidence.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi...
Huawei's drivers, which is what led GCHQ to probe into Huawei's code and write a rather uncharitable report on what their coding practices look like [1], are not. Admittedly, as members of the public we can only take their word for it that they found shoddy code by any reasonable standard. But if the latter is true and any indicator of how they'll maintain their own fork of Android, it's doesn't inspire much confidence.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi...
> Sure thing, but at least Android is open source.
Some of it. Certainly not many of the hardware drivers. There's a reason that updates are dependent on hardware vendors and mobile network operators and that most phones don't have fully functional Lineage builds.
Some of it. Certainly not many of the hardware drivers. There's a reason that updates are dependent on hardware vendors and mobile network operators and that most phones don't have fully functional Lineage builds.
Yeah, well... I think we can agree that it's more open source than other Phone Operating Systems. And that's besides the more important point here, which is that Huawei's developers reportedly write insecure looking spaghetti code.
My point is that any security argument is a red herring when the baseline for comparison is a wet paper bag.
The thing about exploits is that it only takes one. It doesn't matter if Huawei adds another one when there are already thousands to choose from.
The thing about exploits is that it only takes one. It doesn't matter if Huawei adds another one when there are already thousands to choose from.
And mine is that Google has large swaths of OSS code to show that they're competent at writing secure code, whereas there's a report out that Huawei is writing spaghetti code that is so poorly written that even security experts can't make up their mind to say whether it's secure or not except to say that they need to get their act together.
I second this is not about US security but about Google losing their mobile market share.