Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States China Government News

The U.S. is Charging Huawei With Racketeering (techcrunch.com) 70

Ratcheting up its pressure campaign against Huawei and its affiliates, the Department of Justice and the FBI announced today that it has brought 16 charges against Huawei in a sprawling case with major geopolitical implications. From a report: Huawei is being charged with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute. The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies to access those companies' intellectual property, only to then misappropriate that property and use it to fund Huawei's business. In addition to conspiracy, Huawei and the defendants are charged with lying to federal investigators and obstructing the investigation into the company's activity. According to the statement published by the Department of Justice, "As part of the scheme, Huawei allegedly launched a policy instituting a bonus program to reward employees who obtained confidential information from competitors. The policy made clear that employees who provided valuable information were to be financially rewarded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The U.S. is Charging Huawei With Racketeering

Comments Filter:
  • Wait now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @02:04PM (#59724868)
    Is this the good FBI or is this the bad FBI?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      China Bad, so FBI good.
      Trump Good, so FBI bad.

      Oh how the brain melts...

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It invokes the RICO law, so it's the bad FBI. One doesn't need to look any further than the law they chose to prosecute under. (That doesn't make Huawei good, of course.)

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        Whatever. RICO was instrumental in taking down the Mafia to where they are now just the typical street gangs. Giuliani did a good job back then, back when he had all his marbles. Now he's just another of the alleged president's goons.

    • Is this the good FBI or is this the bad FBI?

      Yes. Yes it is.

  • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @02:27PM (#59724966) Homepage
    So I suppose this is all with the goal of convicting Huawei with a felony, so that it can't get any business. Good to see DoJ on this one. Say, will we also be convicting the perpetrators of the 2008 financial crisis of felonies? Their crimes were far worse than IP theft. Multiple serious felonies, and everyone knows who did it. Cleaning out the boardrooms of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup would be a great start. What, we won't be doing that? Why ever not?
    • So I suppose this is all with the goal of convicting Huawei with a felony, so that it can't get any business.

      Being a convicted felon hasn't hurt Microsoft any.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @06:24PM (#59726054) Homepage

      Not IP theft. They negotiated with corrupt corporate executives to give them the data. So more industrial espionage, sort of, as it was all done voluntarily, sort of but the guilty party is less Huawei and more those corporate executives from US companies, greedy little devils. They are just twisting it to attack Huawei again to try to block it in the EU. Huawei will offer a plant in Germany and the Germans will tell the US to bugger off.

      From the EU point of view a Huawei plant in the EU means they can audit it and monitor it for privacy violations and have production free from US backdoors.

  • by hackingbear ( 988354 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @02:35PM (#59725010)

    The US itself has done similar IP grabbing in the past, even sanctioned by its various levels of government and continue to do so [cnn.com].

    Colonial authorities did not distinguish between patents awarded on the account of originality and those on the account of introduction (from existing patent/tech in Europe

    Trade Secretes: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power [eh.net], p.p. 43.

    • by jon3k ( 691256 )
      All countries spy on each other. Only China then passes that information to companies in China who compete directly with the US (and other countries) companies that they spied on. The difference in China is the relationship between the government and businesses, because they are communist.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2020 @04:45PM (#59725646)
        LoL, companies like Boeing, Lockheed, etc. etc. are all so much in bed with the US government that no one can really see the difference with state companies. Do you know you who's French first target for industrial spying counterintelligence? Not China but the USA... They are countless stories of US intelligence providing direct intel to Boeing in order to undermine Airbus contract/offer, or simply steal trade secret (for instance: https://www.latimes.com/archiv... [latimes.com]). And don't forget the EU and the USA are very often in direct competition. So please stop to believe that the US are the good guys playing fair, they did/are doing exactly the same thing as the Chinese.
      • The difference in China is the relationship between the government and businesses, because they are communist.
        That is in capitalist countries just the same .... e.g. see France, industrial espionage is the main job of their intelligence agencies.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Yeah, I heard the Greeks went about conquering the Med and MidEast about 2500 yrs ago. We just cannot trust the Greeks.

  • I have never thought that The Sopranos are behind Huawei :-)
  • by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @03:13PM (#59725194)
    This page explains it pretty well: https://www.popehat.com/2016/0... [popehat.com]

    The short of it is, RICO is widely misunderstood and misapplied. Remember how House would always say "it's not lupus?" The sense I get reading Ken's articles about the topic, RICO is his lupus.

    I don't know anything about the law past what I'm able to find online about it, so you shouldn't take anything I say on it seriously, but at a glance, it looks to me like they might run into trouble proving Huawei engaged in "racketeering activity [cornell.edu]." That's the complete and comprehensive list of federal crimes that constitute "racketeering activity" and skimming through it, it mostly looks like (obviously) mob stuff and not anything Huawei was engaged in. Again, though, law is an incredibly complicated field and I don't know jack about it past what I can find online. I wouldn't trust a lawyer to give me an educated opinion on technology and you shouldn't expect most of the technophiles here to give educated opinions on law unless they actually practice it.
    • No, what Ken always said was that unless they're already being charged with criminal racketeering, it isn't RICO. "It's never RICO" when an individual is suing somebody.

      That does not imply that it is never RICO when the government is doing it.

      To quote him:

      RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder. ...
      And even though it was passed to deal with large-scale organized crime, now it's vastly overused — not so much by the government, but definitely by plaintiff attorneys. ...
      Racketeering activity is the commission of a whole bunch of very specific federal crimes. But it's not just any crime. It's only the ones on the list.

      That's what that link is all about; idiots accusing other idiots of RICO, in the absence of being able to prove that they're guilty of some crime on this list. Only the government can convict them, and the standard of proof is much higher in criminal law,

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday February 13, 2020 @03:19PM (#59725230)

    For years it has been constant drowning of fear mongering Huawei could be doing this they could be doing that. I always tended to dismiss this crap.

    Yet when there is specific compelling evidence of things like a reward programs for stealing shit then I don't mind attacks on Huawei. This is funny as shit.. quoting the indictment:

    "HUAWEI launched a formal policy instituting a bonus program to reward employees who obtained confidential information from competitors. Under the policy, HUAWEI established a formal rewards schedule to pay employees of HUAWEI affiliates for stealing information from competitors based upon the value of the information obtained.

    Employees were directed to post confidential information obtained from other companies on an internal HUAWEI website, or, in the case of especially sensitive information, to send an encrypted email to a special huawei.com email mailbox.

    A âoecompetition management groupâ was tasked with reviewing the submissions and awarding monthly bonuses to the employees who provided the most valuable stolen information. Biannual awards also were made available to the top âoeHuawei Regional Divisionsâ that provided the most valuable information. A memorandum describing this program was sent to employees in the United States."

    • Yet when there is specific compelling evidence of things like a reward programs for stealing shit then I don't mind attacks on Huawei.

      If we applied that same standard to our own companies, we wouldn't have any companies.

      • If we applied that same standard to our own companies, we wouldn't have any companies.

        If you can't pay the fine don't do the crime.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      "Send an encrypted email" makes it sound like BS. How many employees are capable of using GPG and wouldn't it look suspicious sending encrypted mail to an @huawei.cn address anyway?

      You use a dropbox for that kind of thing.

  • Does anyone else get visions of the Axe Gang descending on IT leaders and saying "you must buy Huawei"?

  • Huawei does what everyone knew going into it that Huawei would do

    it was an obvious up-front cost of doing business with that company and whining about it now is crazy

    • Here goes my moderation to this thread

      Huawei does what everyone knew going into it that Huawei would do

      it was an obvious up-front cost of doing business with that company and whining about it now is crazy

      This is endemic. Where I live in the UK it is CUSTOMARY to steal IPR in an interview. UK is not alone either - I have had an interview scheduled by a multinational based in Belgium just to get "insider scoop" on the company I worked for.

      I welcome suing Huawei for that. If it is successful I got a whole list for the DOJ to work on and I am not the only one who would be glad to provide them with some tips to apply RICO in the fashion they apply it to Huawei to a long li

  • Anybody remember Stack? This is exactly what Microsoft did ( does ) to them and others.
  • ... that the DOJ that would once light the way for the rest of us, today can only be considered as a probable lackey of a vile gangster (check your idiomatic italian). It's sad because the world actually does need protecting from asian gangsters, which said gangster is most likely not doing, just cutting hesself a deal. Screw you, Stone/Parker. Better luck next civ, world.
  • Imagine if there were other Chinese companies who were helping construct most of our digital infrastructure. They'd be all up in our base and there'd be nothing we could do about it! Fortunately, if we contain Huawei, and do it super loudly to prove how responsive and on top of it we are, well, then the problem is solved.

    THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...