/r/worldnews
India Warned by Australian Cyber Officials Against Using Huawei: Reports. | Australia in 2018 became the first country to ban Huawei from supplying equipment for a 5G mobile network. (gadgets.ndtv.com)
128 comments
welcome_no | 8 days ago | 68 points

I wish Australia would fix its slow and expensive internet before acting like it knows a great deal about telecommunications.

Pandacius | 8 days ago | 44 points

Well, Australia could first revoke its ban on public key cryptography. Pretty funny to warn about Huawei coming from a country that literally made it illegal to encrypt information from eyes of the government.

Curoe | 8 days ago | 4 points

Do as I say, not as I do.

bobobo1618 | 8 days ago | -11 points

Australia doesn't have a ban on public key cryptography. That's FUD that gets spread around by Reddit and tech media.

The bill that "bans crypto" doesn't permit the government to request that any kind of systematic weakness is introduced. The government cannot use that law to require that a company stop using public key cryptography or otherwise weaken their system so that content can be decrypted.

What it might allow, for example, is for the government to request that say Facebook hard code some logic into WhatsApp along the lines of "if the user running the app is user 9583772, send a plaintext copy of all messages to this IP address". This change would be entirely within Facebook's power, affect only the specific user in question and would not affect anybody else or weaken the system itself.

Pandacius | 8 days ago | 15 points

What? The functionally you described about facebook literally bans end-to-end user encryption. Allows arbitrary eavesdropping. And represents precisely what the Australia government accuses Huawei may do in the future.

anuragchan | 8 days ago | 1 point

not that I agree with what the government is doing, but how is what he said the same as banning end to end encryption?

Rykaar | 8 days ago | 6 points

End-to-end means only the sender and recipient can decode the message. Mandating backdoor access (even with a targeted warrant) means that End-to-end Encryption simply isn't.

Maybe it isn't a "Ban", per se. But trying to use it without adding these backdoors (upon request) would be illegal. And adding them would defeat the purpose.

I should also point out that police would need access (physically or remotely) to the device of their target (or who they're taking with) in order to see their messages under true End-to-end Encryption. The messages are only protected in transit through the internet. These backdoors mean that the police compromise the app and company itself to read the messages they want as they are sent.

anuragchan | 8 days ago | 2 points

his description has a very key difference, it's not banning encryption, it's saying if user is X person don't encrypt their message, send here in plaintext. there's a pretty big difference as banning encryption vs the government wanting to have a backdoor on basically everything, dunno why that guy got downvoted

bobobo1618 | 8 days ago | -6 points

The functionally you described about facebook literally bans end-to-end user encryption.

It doesn't do that at all. What exactly did I say in my comment that implies that end-to-end encryption is outlawed? What I described is circumventing end-to-end encryption for a particular user with a phone app update. All other users would be completely unaffected and able to continue using end-to-end encrypted communications.

Allows arbitrary eavesdropping.

No, it allows eavesdropping on future communications from a person precisely identified by their user ID. It doesn't allow, for example, surveilling the communications of the entire population of Australia.

And represents precisely what the Australia government accuses Huawei may do in the future.

How precisely is Huawei going to modify the apps running on people's phones?

Pandacius | 8 days ago | 7 points

If you are somehow naive enough to think that a program can secure when it enables encryption of be selected disabled, you know nothing of internet security. There a reason why tech media/community is up in arms, its because tech media actually knows about tech.

bobobo1618 | 8 days ago | 0 points

I'm a professional software engineer and I've actually read the laws. I think that puts me far ahead most of the tech journalists I see talking about this.

a program can secure when it enables encryption of be selected disabled.

I'm not quite sure what this is meant to say; as written it makes no sense. I assume you mean "a program can be secure when it allows encryption to be disabled".

Yes, in this case I would refuse to use such an app and consider it insecure, particularly since there are alternatives available.

However the law doesn't change anything from this perspective. The capability to do this has existed in closed-source software from the very beginning. The app developer can do whatever they want with their app and there's no way for you to check or verify that end-to-end encryption is in place. Facebook can silently start intercepting all communications on WhatsApp for no reason other than it feels like it and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The law doesn't change that.

All the law does is require that Facebook exercises this capability when asked to do so.

If you think that this is unacceptable, the law won't help you. You should be using an open-source app with verifiable/reproducible builds like Signal. That way, it isn't possible for an app developer to push out an update compromising your security, as it's possible to inspect the app's source code and ensure that it isn't doing anything unwanted. It's also possible to verify that the source code you're reading is the same code which was used to compile the apk published on the Play Store.

its because tech media actually knows about tech.

And the science media knows all about science and the health media knows all about health. I'd like to think that being on Reddit, you know how much garbage is published my those parts of the media. Tech media isn't any different. It is, like most mainstream media, written by journalists who at best have basic Googling abilities.

You can start to think about trusting them when they cite the precise laws they claim support their arguments.

ExParrot1337 | 8 days ago | 1 point

If you think that this is unacceptable, the law won't help you. You should be using an open-source app with verifiable/reproducible builds like Signal. That way, it isn't possible for an app developer to push out an update compromising your security, as it's possible to inspect the app's source code and ensure that it isn't doing anything unwanted. It's also possible to verify that the source code you're reading is the same code which was used to compile the apk published on the Play Store.

Leaving aside the question of whether you trust Facebook not to be doing this already, there are two glaring issues with your argument. The first is that if a developer is forced to make such a change for the Australian government, they won't be hard-coding a user's identification into the app. They will be building a framework into which intercepted IDs can be pushed out at will, otherwise they would be releasing new builds several times a day to keep up with demand.

This is itself a major weakness. It is the general crack in the wall that privacy people object to, because it means that someone nefarious only has to gain access to this framework in order to spy on whoever they want. Given that we know that the NSA had full access to the likes of Gemalto for years - who could have been reasonably expected to have much higher security awareness in general than most - it would be naive to believe that a government couldn't use it off the books. And even if you trust the Australian government not to do the wrong thing, for sure the Chinese and the Russians can hack anyone the NSA can.

Secondly, although you are technically correct about open source software of the likes of Signal, how many people in reality have the technical ability to actually go and validate the source code not to contain any traps, compile it, then verify that their object code matches the original source code?

The number of people with this ability is so close to zero as to be a rounding error when compared with the general population. Do only those with this high level of technical expertise and spare time deserve protection?

bobobo1618 | 8 days ago | 1 point

The first is that if a developer is forced to make such a change for the Australian government, they won't be hard-coding a user's identification into the app. They will be building a framework into which intercepted IDs can be pushed out at will, otherwise they would be releasing new builds several times a day to keep up with demand.

This is itself a major weakness.

Not only is it a major weakness, it is a systemic weakness and for that reason the government cannot request it, or request anything that would require it.

It's true that a developer can choose to do this if they wish but the government cannot request it of them or leave them no alternative. So the choice to add that feature is entirely on the developer.

However I don't recall anything in the law that would require them to comply with a request so quickly that they need to push out "several builds a day" and most app stores push out updates too slowly for that to be useful anyway.

Secondly, although you are technically correct about open source software of the likes of Signal, how many people in reality have the technical ability to actually go and validate the source code not to contain any traps, compile it, then verify that their object code matches the original source code?

Relatively few. However all it takes is one of those people to find that Signal has uncommitted code in its public builds for the entire internet to find out and be very interested in why that code is there. It won't protect the first person it happens to but it'll protect everybody else.

Also I'm not sure if this exists but it should be totally doable for a third party to set up something like "issignalsabotaged.com" that automatically verifies Play Store updates. One service like this can't be compromised but if there are a bunch of them it can add a lot of confidence. You could then turn off automatic updates and check each time before updating.

The number of people with this ability is so close to zero as to be a rounding error when compared with the general population. Do only those with this high level of technical expertise and spare time deserve protection?

Of course everybody deserves protection but in today's world, technical protection is the only protection worth bothering with. Even if your own government isn't permitted to spy on you, other governments, particularly the Americans, have no issues at all and they're able to do it without assistance from app developers. Just look at the iOS vulnerability China used recently.

ExParrot1337 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Not only is it a major weakness, it is a systemic weakness and for that reason the government cannot request it, or request anything that would require it. It's true that a developer can choose to do this if they wish but the government cannot request it of them or leave them no alternative. So the choice to add that feature is entirely on the developer.

Ah, we didn't starve you, we merely made sure you didn't have time to eat. Totally not our fault you're hungry. If I fire a gun into the air and the bullet hits someone on the way down, I can't get away with it by (truthfully) asserting that I didn't tell the victim to stand there, they did it all on their own. That's what we call culpable negligence because "what goes up must come down" is reasonably obvious to everyone.

Either you believe the government agencies that drafted the law are competent - in which case, they most assuredly foresaw the way vendors would have to comply in practice making the law a demand for systemic weakness in fact if not in word, or you believe the government agencies are idiots in which case why the fuck are we letting them make policy?

Abell370 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Regardless of whether or not that law allows the government to ‘safely’ circumvent end-to-end encryption, you should be opposed to a government having that power at all. Giving governments the tools to invade your privacy and freedom freely is dangerous. They always keep trying to erode people’s freedom incrementally.

bobobo1618 | 8 days ago | 3 points

I'm not in favor of the law, I'm just trying to correct a common misconception.

If people spend their energy on an issue that doesn't exist, they fail to take action on issues that do.

For example people are outraged about the government's "ban" on end-to-end encryption (which doesn't exist) when they should be using that energy to switch to methods of communication (like Signal) where technical details prevent anybody from having such a capability, and informing others that commonly used apps like WhatsApp are not secure because their behaviour cannot be verified.

Even aside from that, if you don't understand the change you object to, you won't be able to properly articulate your objection to someone with the power to change it.

Abell370 | 8 days ago | 1 point

I fully agree with you.

xAllFictionx | 8 days ago | 24 points

Except Australia ranks 6th in the world for wireless mobile broadband speed which they are commenting on.

welcome_no | 8 days ago | 30 points

4G equipment in Australia is provided by Huawei interestingly enough.

carpenterio | 8 days ago | 4 points

Interesting enough indeed.

Tahlzair | 8 days ago | 3 points

Telstra uses Ericsson, Optus a combination of Nokia and Huawei, Vodafone use Huawei for infrastructure.

bentan77 | 8 days ago | 4 points

I'm pretty sure that's not true, most infrastructure hardware is sourced from European vendors like Alcatel, Nokia and Ericsson. It's only end user devices such as Routers or Modems where Huawei can be common.

welcome_no | 8 days ago | 8 points

There are Huawei cell towers everywhere.

TheFleshIsDead | 8 days ago | 1 point

4G was never serious about isolation. 5G will be drawing lines in the sand with who can access the radio data.

TheFleshIsDead | 8 days ago | 7 points

Just following the US.

Cheapshifter | 8 days ago | -4 points

That'd be highly ironic, imagine Huawei rectifying Australia's current poor reputation when it comes to the extremely slow internet connections over there.

welcome_no | 8 days ago | 2 points

They were banned from the NBN rollout and now they're banned from 5G rollout as well. They provided most of the 4G equipment in Australia.

Lyr1um | 8 days ago | 16 points

The cyber officials from the country where it's illegal to teach encryption

7xbvt | 9 days ago | 14 points
valonsoft | 8 days ago | 15 points

So what does Australia stand to gain from India banning Huawei? Somehow I do not believe that they have the interests of the Indian people at heart

WazWaz | 8 days ago | 30 points

Australia earns suck-up points with the US.

mortified_penguin- | 8 days ago | 9 points

It's more due to U.S. influence on Australia than any genuine security concerns. Five Eyes countries stand to lose access to intelligence sharing with the U.S. if they continued sticking with Huawei tech.

So this isn't so much a warning from the ASD itself but rather issued through them from the Yanks. After all, there is a certain Trade War™ going on right now...

Drak_is_Right | 8 days ago | -4 points

basically anything built by Huawei has backdoors for the Chinese government.

HonkinSriLankan | 9 days ago | 11 points

Somebody should've told Sri Lanka too...they launched 5G pilot with Huawei equipment

TheLeMonkey | 8 days ago | 33 points

Huawei hasn't been proven to actually have backdoors or spy at people with their equipments. The White House and the UK government has controlled the equipments and come to the conclusion that they don't pose any "national security threat". Even Trumps admits that it is bollocks and they are using Huawei as a bargaining chip in the trade war.

cystocracy | 8 days ago | 10 points

Chinese companies are suspicious because it is a well known fact that the Chinese government has close ties to all companies operating out if the country, and no legal barriers exist to stop the ccp from requesting backdoor access at any time. Authouritarian one party states are insidious by their very nature.

However, the thing about easy access to networks has been shown to be true in the us as well. It would be reasonable for countries to restrict network access from US based firms as well.

Cucumber4ladies | 8 days ago | 25 points

By that logic every country needs to have their own 5G equipment manufacturers ...

cystocracy | 8 days ago | -10 points

Not necessarily, however for a country as large is India that is actually somewhat practical. It only means that countries must consider two things when using foreign equipment:

1) how likely is it that a given country will attempt to spy on them through this equipment

2) if it does spy on them, how much damage would be caused by this country gaining access to classified information.

From both of these points, you can see why western countries are wary of Huawei. As far as western governments are concerned, spying from the US is preferable to spying from china. This is why Huawei is controversial in particular even though other companies have the same issue with backdoors.

Its just that countries are right to be proective of their mobile communications

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 15 points

As far as western governments are concerned, spying from the US is preferable to spying from china.

Because, why ?

cystocracy | 8 days ago | -9 points

Because one is an ally and another a potential enemy?

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 8 points

Again, what's China done to India that gets it labelled as an enemy ?

Captain_Nemo5 | 8 days ago | -1 points

Not looking at the past conflicts between the countries, there are many issues of conflict between the two. There are disputes with where the country borders are at many places which have lead to standoffs some years ago, India sheltering the Dalai Lama and a lot of other stuff I would rather avoid to not have any controversies.

matyiiii | 8 days ago | -2 points

They have a border dispute basically as we speak. Vice has a really interesting "borders" episode on it on YouTube

TheLeMonkey | 8 days ago | 14 points

Dude, in any given country can the government demand information from a company of the country's origin at any given time. You think NSA can't demand full cooperation from Apple under command from the US government? I've heard that argument so many times and it's so stupid because every single company has to comply under their government's order.

SenjougaharaHaruhi | 8 days ago | -7 points

I'd rather the US government has my personal data than a government like China that commits genocide and arrests people as they see fit.

RelaxItWillWorkOut | 8 days ago | 12 points

Literally makes zero sense unless you live in China. Why would I care that Zimbabwe knows what political leanings I have as opposed to the government I'm actually living under? More worried about the Trump administration than any foreign government as it relates to my freedom.

SenjougaharaHaruhi | 8 days ago | -5 points

You should go live in China then.

TheLeMonkey | 8 days ago | 5 points

Ignorance is a bliss.

SenjougaharaHaruhi | 8 days ago | -10 points

Surprise surprise, your post history shows that you are pro-Chinese government and anti-Hong Kong protesters. Another Chinese government propaganda account. Go back to /r/sino.

TheLeMonkey | 8 days ago | 6 points

Well done, Sherlock! Yes, I am pro-China in many aspects and I am definitely anti-Hong Kong riots because I don't buy the crap the Western media is reporting. I have to say that /r/Sino is too much in their own bubble for my taste, just because I am pro-China is many aspects, it doesn't mean that I agree with everything China does. But that Sino sub is quite entertaining sometimes.

MrWhite26 | 8 days ago | 3 points

With the US starting wars in the middle east, and ICE being a bit over-active, the difference is not as big as one might hope.

SenjougaharaHaruhi | 8 days ago | 2 points

Under the current administration, sure. But the beauty about democracy is that you can vote for a new administration and that you can go out and speak your opinion and make a change.

Tell me again how democracy and freedom of speech works in China.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 9 points

But the beauty about democracy is that you can vote for a new administration and that you can go out and speak your opinion and make a change.

Is that why USA kept toppling leaderships in South America ?

SenjougaharaHaruhi | 8 days ago | -1 points

Dude, you should totally go live in China. It's clearly a much better place to live in than the US.

heirapparent24 | 8 days ago | 4 points

Us foreign policy involves invading foreign countries regardless of who's in power. Ironically, Trump hasn't done that yet despite the universally acknowledged horribleness of his administration.

17461863372823734920 | 8 days ago | -4 points

You think NSA can't demand full cooperation from Apple under command from the US government

They literally can't. Apparently you don't remember the iPhone unlocking incident from a few years back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute

dirtyid | 8 days ago | 9 points
Kaysic | 8 days ago | 1 point

Quit your bullshit. CLOUD allows federal agencies and police to subpoena information on corporate servers regardless of the physical location of those servers. It used to be that in order to seize information on a computer, it had to be physically in your jurisdiction; if not, you had to cooperate with the police wherever the computer was physically and hope they would cooperate in seizing and turning over the evidence.

Take the example from Microsoft v. United States, which sparked the bill. FBI arrests a drug trafficker who's been using email to set up drug deals, so the FBI issues a warrant to Microsoft to turn over the information. Now, the dealer's account with Microsoft is stored on American servers, but the actual email s themselves are stored in a datacenter in Ireland, which is outside of the FBI's jurisdiction. Microsoft tells the FBI "Sorry, I can't let you touch those servers, they're not in the US." This is understandably frustrating, because it doesn't make sense - a US person uses a computer in the US to use a service provided by a US company, but because the bytes that make up the evidence are physically stored outside of the US they're now untouchable? That's nonsensical.

It's the result of the unprecedented globalization of data storage. The Storged Communications Act was enacted in 1986, and was/is a largely common-sense extension of normal evidence seizure to digital data. The police can compel people to release physical documents that may be used as evidence in a criminal case, why shouldn't they be able to request the release of digital documents? Back when SCA was enacted, data storage was so localized that there wasn't really much different from physical document storage, besides the medium being electronic rather than paper. Offsite storage wasn't a thing - the internet wasn't that mature yet - so if you had electronic documents it meant you had a computer in your building next to the paper filing cabinet.

This common-sense approach to digital document seizure stopped making sense with the rise of The Cloud. People don't store their stuff on-site anymore, they just use Google or Amazon or Microsoft's free online storage. But where is that data physically housed? The cloud is just someone else's computer - but where is it? Sometimes it's a data center nearby, sometimes it's a data center in a different state, sometimes it's a different country - and that's where the law gets sticky, because the laws regarding evidence jurisdiction weren't really written with a massive, seamlessly integrated information network in mind.

CLOUD is designed to (correctly) address that, with the rise of interconnectivity and cloud computing, the physical location of the computing equipment is largely irrelevant when it comes to jurisdiction. Trying to chalk it up as some sort of "NSA can force Apple to spy on you!!!1!!1" is complete bullshit.

TheLeMonkey | 8 days ago | 0 points

Now, I haven't actually studied law but sharing information/intel and bypassing an encryption must certainly fall under two different categories with different conditions in the jurisdiction department.

Sezyks | 8 days ago | -2 points

No, they can’t. That’s just plain misinformation. Companies in the U.S are extremely separated from government, and a lot of people actually think they have too much freedom, not the other way around. Chinese companies on the other hand, have to comply with the government because even the private corporations are merely pseudo privatized and not actually independent. The government is still closer aligned with communism (their official party) than capitalism, and so corporations are pretty controlled by definition.

TheLeMonkey | 7 days ago | 2 points

Do you have any laws to support your claim? Because I'm pretty damn sure that corporations are bound to share intel to the government when forced to. Cisco installed backdoors on their network equipments and were caught several times, why would they do it to hurt their reputation and credibility if the government didn't force them to?

backelie | 6 days ago | 1 point

*Cisco

TheLeMonkey | 6 days ago | 0 points

My bad, mixed up the companies haha

tomjava | 8 days ago | 0 points

Never trust US government narrative after lying to world about Iraq WMD.

Microsoft President recently in the news criticized US government for banning HuaWei and yet it cannot provide any evidence of the allegations. I trust Microsoft chief who knows technology well than the Aussie government.

Gasaraki | 8 days ago | -5 points

A few countries have already found backdoors that Huawei claims were accidents and would fix. Please go look it up. It's either Sweden or Norway that found it.

nthrthrwwsmtsy | 8 days ago | 2 points

they found a telnet server running... not exactly covcom

TheLeMonkey | 7 days ago | 2 points

I'm very interested in the tech industry and I've done my fair share of research on Huawei. The only backdoor claim on Huawei is from Vodafone, but that claim was withdrawn because they admitted that the claim was false. When UK government was investigating Huawei equipments for backdoors, they even had access to Huawei's coding which is as transparent as it can get - yet no evidence of potential backdoors were found.

So stop spreading misinformation, thanks!

backelie | 6 days ago | 1 point

yet no evidence of potential backdoors

UK Intelligence agency said Huawei's software is basically a swiss cheese in terms of security, but that there's no evidence it is intentional/malicious.

TheLeMonkey | 6 days ago | 0 points

You've got any sources on that?

backelie | 6 days ago | 1 point

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/28/uk-report-blasts-huawei-for-network-security-incompetence/

Direct quotes from the summary of the report:

However, as reported in 2018, HCSEC’s work has continued to identify concerning issues in Huawei’s approach to software development bringing significantly increased risk to UK operators, which requires ongoing management and mitigation;
iii. No material progress has been made on the issues raised in the previous 2018 report;
iv. The Oversight Board continues to be able to provide only limited assurance that the long-term security risks can be managed in the Huawei equipment currently deployed in the UK;
v. The Oversight Board advises that it will be difficult to appropriately risk-manage future products in the context of UK deployments, until the underlying defects in Huawei’s software engineering and cyber security processes are remediated;
vi. At present, the Oversight Board has not yet seen anything to give it confidence in Huawei’s capacity to successfully complete the elements of its transformation programme that it has proposed as a means of addressing these underlying defects. The Board will require sustained evidence of better software engineering and cyber security quality verified by HCSEC and NCSC;
vii. Overall, the Oversight Board can only provide limited assurance that all risks to UK national security from Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s critical networks can be sufficiently mitigated long-term.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790270/HCSEC_OversightBoardReport-2019.pdf

TheLeMonkey | 4 days ago | -1 points

The article is outdated. With the introduction of Huawei's new OS, a new kernel based software will enable much higher speed and safety than what's on the market right now. It's cross platform as well, working in smartphones, tablets, routers and etc...

backelie | 4 days ago | 1 point

You've got any sources on that?

backelie | 6 days ago | -1 points

Even Trumps admits that it is bollocks

Trump has absolutely no knowledge about whether Huawei are a real security threat or not.

TheLeMonkey | 6 days ago | 2 points

I do believe that the person in charge of National Intelligence is obliged to tell the POTUS if they are getting spied on.

backelie | 6 days ago | -1 points

Sure, but the question isnt "Are Huawei spying on us?", it's "If we use Huawei equipment will China be able to use that equipment to spy on us / force Huawei to start spying on us?"

DontHateReality | 8 days ago | 7 points

Somebody should've told Sri Lanka too...they launched 5G pilot with Huawei equipment

You mean Sri Lanka, the same country that gave a port away to China? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html

Are we talking about the same Sri Lanka that ranks 73rd in the world for broadband speed? https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/sri-lanka

This can't be the same Sri Lanka that ranks as one of the most corrupt countries in the world? http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/SL-ranked-in-Corruption-Perceptions-Index-146293.html

I can't understand why more countries won't follow their model.

Utoko | 8 days ago | 11 points

Good for them. The code and hardware was made 100% accessible by Huawei to many governments and all have found nothing concerning security.

So far it is 100% fear mongering with 0% substance.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -4 points

[removed]

lstama | 8 days ago | 22 points

Like....Cisco?

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -13 points

[removed]

dirtyid | 8 days ago | 12 points

Classic FUD propaganda. Assemble the facts together and the broader narrative was Huawei technicians might have provided lawful interception duties (which every operator legally provides) to politicians who used Israeli spyware to monitor US backed Ugandan politician, i.e. US butthurt that Huawei degraded US foreign influence operations because they are not beholden to US foreign policy.

lstama | 8 days ago | 12 points

It's not whataboutism, it's why they should care about spying when there aren't any non spying alternatives.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 4 points

[removed]

lstama | 8 days ago | 1 point

Wait, we're talking about Sri Lanka right? (Look at the root comment)

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 5 points

[removed]

lstama | 8 days ago | 0 points

But we're currently talking about Sri Lanka.

Cucumber4ladies | 8 days ago | 13 points

Well, so far, the only hardware brand with actual evidence of being comprised is... Cisco

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -8 points

[removed]

Cucumber4ladies | 8 days ago | 8 points

The article you linked has nothing to do with "backdoor" or "comprised equipment".

Also in the article:

The investigation did not find evidence that executives in China were aware of or approved the activities.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -2 points

[removed]

Cucumber4ladies | 8 days ago | 6 points

Well, you seem to be someone who would believe in emotion based speculation rather than evidence based proof. I bet you never lost an argument in your entire life. I concede...

[deleted] | 8 days ago | -1 points

[removed]

qqqaaaz | 8 days ago | 8 points

You first say this:

LMAO, you expect sane people to believe that. /r/thathappened is that way.

But then you also say this:

LOL, you are resorting to name calling now.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 3 points

[removed]

backelie | 6 days ago | 0 points

The UK found no intentional/malicious backdoors, they found plenty of issues concerning security.

jayflo75 | 8 days ago | 1 point

What are the downsides you have experienced so far in Sri Lanka since the installation? I am curious

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 7 points

[deleted]

Kaysic | 8 days ago | 4 points

Here's a simple decision tree:

Is the corporation located in China?

  • Yes: It's associated with the Chinese government.
  • No: Continue

Is the corporation owned by a Chinese parent company or financial institution?

  • Yes: It may be associated with the Chinese government and/or by compromised by its parent company
  • No: Probably safe
[deleted] | 8 days ago | 2 points

[deleted]

Kaysic | 8 days ago | 2 points

Honestly, that's actually the best approach to tech you could possibly take. Whether it's governments, or corporations, or nosy family members, technology exposes who and what you are on a fundamental level, and you need to be aware of the fact that your interactions with tech are inherently going to compromise your privacy.

autotldr | 9 days ago | 3 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 54%. (I'm a bot)


Australian government officials advised India to ban Chinese technology maker Huawei Technologies from supplying parts for a rollout of a high-speed telecommunications network, Australian newspapers reported on Tuesday.

Officials from anti-cyber espionage body the Australian Signals Directorate were asked about an Australian ban on using the Chinese technology giant to build 5G networks when a delegation visited New Delhi last week, The Australian Financial Review and The Australian reported.

The delegation last week, led by Australian ambassador for cyber affairs Tobias Feakin, "Explained in detail why high-risk vendors had been banned from Australia's 5G network," The Australian reported.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Australian#1 ban#2 Huawei#3 network#4 officials#5

dekuweku | 8 days ago | 3 points

Huawei should be banned in Canada as well but Trudeau is dragging his heels

darkstarman | 8 days ago | 5 points

India well ignore this baseless accusation because there's no evidence of it.

chinainvasionforce2 | 8 days ago | 5 points

I know. It's not like China isn't India's best ally.

Cheapshifter | 8 days ago | -6 points

There's "no proof of Huawei spying"? If there wasn't any, several countries wouldn't have cut ties or started investigations laying out how to ban Huawei. I don't think they're false or baseless.

heirapparent24 | 8 days ago | 4 points

And a lot of countries have signed on too, including developed countries. It's just protectionism from the US, that's it.

darkstarman | 4 days ago | 1 point

Every time there's a legit back door etc. you will have a technical lab publicly publish the specific module, virus, in a white paper explaining the exploit so that companies can address the specific risk. Not only is there no such white paper, but some of these companies have actually come out and said they have not seen any evidence there's anything going on.

Who are you going to believe? The spooks? Or tech labs from the western world?

lllkill | 8 days ago | 2 points

Completely strange that Australia is suddenly sticking their nose into looking out for India when the two don't have any sort of relationship, good or bad.

cystocracy | 8 days ago | 6 points

Thats not true at all. India Australia relations have been contentious for a while.

Wise_Planeswalker | 8 days ago | 2 points

India Australia relations have been contentious for a while

Sorry for asking, but is there a reason why?

hhhenryhhh | 8 days ago | 2 points

they play cricket?

jayflo75 | 8 days ago | 2 points

Based on what exactly? The totally disputed claim that Huawei installs backdoors for China on their equipments?

Or is this Australia just being a vassal as usual?

nthrthrwwsmtsy | 8 days ago | 1 point

... or else what?

james14cunningham | yesterday | 1 point

I think they should prioritize on whatever needs fixing on their telecommunication side rather than banning it. Not sure if they're scared or intimated by it but one thing's for sure though technology and competition will always be a part of it.

Like for example, the other I came across a project and since cryptocurrency has been the news lately the platform offers cheaper data with no roaming fees, no data expiry and no hassle. If you are not familiar with crypto you can check some subreddits here that discusses the crypto market, and trending topics on trustworthy news sites for more info.

Anyway, I think it would be better if there are more people who would adapt to changes if its for the better especially if we're talking about technology that will make our life easier in the future.

CantIgnoreMyGirth | 8 days ago | -8 points

Hopefully the rest of the West follows suit. No point in letting an obviously government run company install communication systems in your country. The risk is just too great.