Huawei Technicians Helped African Governments Spy on Political Opponents

phalse phace writes: A WSJ investigation appears to have uncovered multiple instances where the African governments in Uganda and Zambia, with the help of Huawei technicians, used Huawei's communications equipment to spy on and censor political opponents and its citizens. From the report, writes phalse phace: Huawei Technologies dominates African markets, where it has sold security tools that governments use for digital surveillance and censorship. But Huawei employees have provided other services, not disclosed publicly. Technicians from the Chinese powerhouse have, in at least two cases, personally helped African governments spy on their political opponents, including intercepting their encrypted communications and social media, and using cell data to track their whereabouts, according to senior security officials working directly with the Huawei employees in these countries.

It should be noted that while the findings "show how Huawei employees have used the company's technology and other companies' products to support the domestic spying of those governments," the investigation didn't turn up evidence of spying by or on behalf of Beijing in Africa. Nor did it find that Huawei executives in China knew of, directed or approved the activities described. It also didn't find that there was something particular about the technology in Huawei's network that made such activities possible. Details of the operations, however, offer evidence that Huawei employees played a direct role in government efforts to intercept the private communications of opponents.

Huawei IS its employees

[cayenne8]

It should be noted that while the findings "show how Huawei employees have used the company's technology and other companies' products to support the domestic spying of those governments," the investigation didn't turn up evidence of spying by or on behalf of Beijing in Africa. Nor did it find that Huawei executives in China knew of, directed or approved the activities described. It also didn't find that there was something particular about the technology in Huawei's network that made such activities possible. Details of the operations, however, offer evidence that Huawei employees played a direct role in government efforts to intercept the private communications of opponents.

A company IS its employees.

There's no way this type of thing occurred at this level without knowledge of the executives and management, no way.

I don't think there is any way to dodge that Huawei is a company that is NOT to be trusted with a nation's communication infrastructure or devices.

At least not if you are a democracy or republic...etc....anything but a dictatorship / oppressive regime.

But then again, look where the company emanates from....

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I forget, why are we singling out Huawei again?

Re:

[Sir_Eptishous]

I forget, why are we singling out Huawei again?

Damn, I knew it wouldn't be long until Huawei apologists showed up...
Bro, you're on your game!

Re:

[fustakrakich]

That doesn't answer the question.

I guess this is your game, huh?

Re:

[bogaboga]

Dude, let's first compare this kind of spying to that done by those 3-letter US agencies.

Ohh, to be precise, let's start with what the NSA has done over the years [cnn.com] to its allies.

We could also include activities involving CISCO [reuters.com] as a bonus...

Re:Huawei IS its employees

[twocows]

Because they're the ones in the news right now. If you have evidence of similar unethical dealings from other smartphone companies happening right now, submit it as a story and we can talk about that. Until then, you'll be perceived as deflecting because, intentionally or not, that's what you're doing.

It's pretty common knowledge that a large majority of tech companies (and companies in general) are unethical to varying degrees and involved with bad stuff. Huawei is an easy target because there's a lot of information about the bad stuff they do and they're quite visibly attached to the political apparatus of China. They're the low-hanging fruit, so they get reported on.

Re:Huawei IS its employees

[twocows]

I don't know. Your original post was "why are we singling out Huawei," which is what I was responding to. The answer is because that's what the WSJ reported on. As far as your new argument, the WSJ investigated the topic and came to a conclusion based on their findings. If you think the case they made is insufficient or biased, then point out why you think that and what they did wrong. I'm not even saying I'll disagree with you, it's just that you haven't actually made an argument, merely accusations.

Re:Huawei IS its employees

[twocows]

I'm going off the information that was presented in the linked story: they made a case for their position and at least superficially substantiated it. The burden of proof is only on the affirmative party until they've actually made their case; once they've made their case, the burden of proof moves to the negative party to prove that the affirmative argument was lacking in some way. That's how debate works. So again, they've made their case, what parts do you think were insufficient or improper?

I don't know if the WSJ is biased or not, I don't really pay much attention to which news sources do what. Claiming the story is wrong based on the source that it came from is a genetic fallacy, though. That's not to say bias and impropriety aren't a thing or can't be relevant, just that past instances of that can't be used solely as a response to a current argument. What they should provide is context: if there was past bias or past impropriety, we should be more skeptical of their claims. Which I am: I don't outright believe them, which is why I'm trying to get you to tell me what parts you took issue with, so I have a basis to look into it further.

So what I'm trying to ask is, why should I be skeptical of the WSJ and what parts of their latest investigation do you believe were insufficient? Again, you could easily be right, I just don't know and I'm asking for clarification.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Well I'll be damned! That was me. Don't ask, don't tell

Re:

[gtall]

There's no we. Trump got up one morning and decided that since he was in a dick fight with Jinping, Huawei was Chinese, and Huawei was ahead in 5-G, that he could step on them to squeeze Jinping. He admitted to such when he said if China bought enough U.S. farm products, he'd take the pressure off Huawei.

Regarding their security issues, Trump doesn't get security and cannot keep his attention during any security briefings and doesn't understand anything he's told anyhow. His thinking doesn't get beyond "Ooo

Re:

[Perl-Pusher]

Well maybe this is the reason: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] https://www.cyberscoop.com/and... [cyberscoop.com] https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]

Re: Huawei IS its employees

[Type44Q]

Geopolitics. Yes, we know it's hard [for you.]

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Pffft... It's plain old gangster warfare for turf. There's nothing "hard" about your geopolitical theater. In fact, it's downright repetitious

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

It's been over a week since the last Huawei-bashing story ran, I was wondering what had happened, they should be running daily at least.

Re:

[PolygamousRanchKid]

There's no way this type of thing occurred at this level without knowledge of the executives and management, no way.

Well . . . they could go with the Volkswagen executive defense . . . and blame it on a "rogue programmer" . . .

Re:Huawei IS its employees

[DesScorp]

A company IS its employees.

In the case of Red China, the company IS an arm of the government. That's the important thing here. The Chinese are doing what the Soviets did in Africa in the 60's and 70's; slowly taking things over with various proxy governments. China is just using their corporations... all of whom serve the their governments as defacto government agencies... to spread their rule rather than sending in armies and military "advisers".

If you're dealing with a Chinese company in any capacity, then you're actually doing business with the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China.

Re:

[gtall]

Yep, sort of makes pulling out of the Transpacific Trade Agreement and screwing over NATO and thus the EU and peeing on Japan and Korea something of a drag on curtailing Chinese influence. Instant Karma, just add Trump and the U.S. can be a loser just like him.

Re:Huawei IS its employees

[twocows]

I hardly sympathize with the US government for losing out on their attempt to export our Disney-sponsored copyright catastrofuck to the rest of the world. The EFF has been covering the situation for years:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp [eff.org]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
While pulling out of the TPP may have interfered with the US government's plans for east Asia, everyone else involved probably dodged a pretty nasty bullet. In particular, derivative fan works (mainly comics and games) are a big deal in Japan and to a lesser degree in a few other east Asian countries and I can easily see the TPP having caused major harm to their legal status.

Re:

[vbdasc]

Okay, let Huawei be its employees. What bad did Huawei do this time? Cooperated with some sovereign countries' lawful and internationally recognized governments. Did Huawei break these nation's laws? Is there any evidence for that? I don't think so. Does the WSJ article suggest that these governments somehow violate their own laws? Yes, apparently. Hint: The US constitution has no authority in these countries,nor anywhere in the world but the USA.

When there's a (political) will

[Provocateur]

When there's a will, there's Huawei

I'll see myself out, thanks

Any actual evidence for this?

[notdecnet]

Here's a story with actual details: All roads in US cable biz GTT's Brit network seem to lead to Menwith Hill [theregister.co.uk]

Re: Any actual evidence for this?

[xavdeman]

Evidence: "internal police documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal". I'm becoming more and more sceptical of newspapers that don't even bother to link to redacted scans of such documents. It used to be that they had lack of space in the physical paper as an excuse but now they have a website and it doesn't fly anymore.

running out of weapons

[hackingbear]

Looks like the US needs to find more new arsenal in its trade war with China.

Just who the hell ...

[PPH]

... do they think they are? The NSA?

Re:

[GameboyRMH]

Or Yahoo?

https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]

Or Cisco or Boeing?

https://www.eff.org/issues/mas... [eff.org]

Or Xilinx or IBM?

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

A WSJ investigation

[halohell]

Democracy dies in darkness

Re: A WSJ investigation

[halohell]

The tagline is WaPo but I feel it can be used by any MSM outfit at this state. Google, Huawei, Microsoft, Facebook are all follow the same practices and their msm sycophants are paid to keep you in the dark.

Yeah right

[robi5]

If they were willing to spy on behalf of some African countries thousands of miles away from the Huawei company HQ, what are the chances that they're willing to spy on behalf of their own autocratic government that sends them into reeducation camp otherwise?

re

[herbertserrano]

I wonder what the situation between USA and China will end up with. Countries with economies based on US currency may suffer as well as US citizens because of fall in exchange. Though, the real problem is American government wants to spy on everybody and to be the only one, preventing from spying by other countries. IS it good asks the essay service [theessayservice.org]?