Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia China Networking Security IT

Australian Gov't Bans Huawei From National Network Bids 168

Posted by timothy from the drive-a-hard-bargain dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like paranoia regarding Chinese cyber-espionage is riding sky-high within the Australian Government. It was confirmed today that the country's Attorney-General's Department had banned Chinese networking vendor Huawei (the number two telco networking equipment vendor globally) from bidding for work supplying equipment to the government's $50 billion National Broadband Network universal fibre project. The unprecedented move comes despite Huawei offering to share its source code with security officials, and despite Huawei not being accused of breaking any laws in Australia. Questions over the legality of the Government's move are already being raised."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Gov't Bans Huawei From National Network Bids More

Australian Gov't Bans Huawei From National Network Bids

Comments Filter:

  • Oh no! National interest trumping the Free Market (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:22AM (#39458983)

    Surely some capitalist ideologue must be spinning in his grave...hey, I bet that could be harnessed to drive a generator.

    He won't mind, it's a free market solution!

    • It's unlikely to have much to do with the Australian national interest.

      The current Australian government has been making increasingly bizarre decisions, many of which will clearly will be to the detriment of Australian citizens. It's very likely this decision to ban a specific vendor, along with many other recent government mandates are at the behest of their puppet masters.

      “Four Corners” itself noted that the key Labor coup plotters, as revealed in WikiLeaks cables, had long been secretly informing Washington about the internal workings of the Labor government. The same cables make clear that the Obama administration was disenchanted with Rudd over a range of issues, especially his attempts to moderate rising tensions between the US and China. Gillard, on the other hand, was viewed in positive terms as someone who could be counted on to toe Washington’s line.

      http://indymedia.org.au/2012/02/22/the-role-of-the-us-in-the-leadership-crisis-in-the-alp [indymedia.org.au]
      http://pirateparty.org.au/2012/03/22/pirate-party-disgusted-by-rampant-government-secrecy/ [pirateparty.org.au]

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        G'day Clive, you fat bastard! How are your "Greens are a CIA plot" claims working out for you? Don't worry - we know what "China First" really means - but we won't tell anyone. *snort*

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No doubt you will feel cheated if Australia doesn't receive all the benefits of Chinese attention that the United States has received.

        FBI cracks down on China's elusive army of amateur spies [telegraph.co.uk]

        The FBI estimates that more than 3,000 "front companies" have been established by Chinese nationals in the US specifically to purloin military and economic secrets illegally.

        Let Me Count The Ways China Is Stealing Our Secrets [manufacturing.net]

        China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets [fas.org]

        This CRS Report discusses China’s suspected acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets, including that on the W88, the newest U.S. nuclear warhead.

        China's Secret War [frontpagemag.com]

        Of course, why worry?

        China warns Australia against military pact with US [indiatimes.com]
        Aussies fear threat of war with China [heraldsun.com.au]

        • No doubt you will feel cheated if Australia doesn't receive all the benefits of Chinese attention that the United States has received.

          We're already receiving that same kind of attention from the USA, to the extent that they're choosing our political leadership for us.

          America, China, neither have real Australians interests in mind, so what does it matter who's meddling most?

          • We're already receiving that same kind of attention from the USA, to the extent that they're choosing our political leadership for us.

            You seem confused about the facts. Some Australians may have given notice to US diplomats that this was happening, but that doesn't mean that the US decided who was going to be the Australian PM any more than you complaining to your neighbor about a bad boss at work makes the neighbor responsible when the boss gets fired.

            It was Australians who made the choice, and Australia

            • It was Australians who made the choice, and Australians who voted on who would be the PM, not the US.

              Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

              • Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

                Last I knew it was Australian MPs that voted from the PM, so yes, it is still Australians that vote for the PM. Or has that changed?

              • Slight correction:

                Except that we don't vote for the P.M.

                Last I knew it was Australian MPs that voted for the PM, so yes, it is still Australians that vote for the PM. Or has that changed?

      • >toe Washington's line

        Bless you for getting this phrase right. I was afraid everyone forever was going to write "tow the line", which doesn't even make sense.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Ironically meaning that you could in fact care less. Yes, well done that poster. I'm sure we were all champing at the bit to recognise their rare and correct rendition of this phrase.

      • I distinctly remember the previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declaring loudly that he was going to push through a Supertax of about 30% on mining. Next thing we knew there were rumbles and he was ousted very quickly. I personally suspected it was the big mining corporations that lent on the government. Just my two cents.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          A mining tax is totally logical, keep in mind you are robbing future generations to feed today's generation greed. Europe has limited primary resources not because they had few to start with but because they used the cheaply accessible and highly profitable ones up.

          When it comes to essential infrastructure any sound sensible government should always, always drive local production. This establishes and maintains an essential infrastructure skills base and ensures local supplies. Where private industry doe

  • Are the concerns valid? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtomicSymphonic ( 2570041 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:27AM (#39458995)

    I think Huawei was also left out of consideration when AT&T and Verizon were looking to build more LTE towers in the US. Or was that the federal government didn't want their equipment out of this fear?

    Would love if someone clarified this.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I believe that India too had blacklisted Huawei some years earlier, and a lot of foreign countries would be nervous about a company that's in bed w/ the Beijing regime being in charge of setting up their infrastructure.

      • Re:Are the concerns valid? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:18AM (#39459289)

        Code audits don't reveal backdoors in hardware. I've disassembled malicious silicon from China. I don't really trust anything built in their fabs now. Personal phone calls, sure. Corporate, well, just assume you've been compromised.

      • Re:Are the concerns valid? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:22AM (#39459301)
        Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Aaron B Lingwood ( 1288412 )

          Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?

          It is about preserving our way of life. China is a Marxist–Leninist single-party state (nominally communist). The US and Australia are both democracies whose constitutions share similar ideas. China has played a big part in the spread of communism, mostly through force.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            >The US and Australia are both democracies

            Oh, you. The US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

            • Oh, you. The US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

              Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:
              While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.
              The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.
              Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.

              • Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:

                Assuming this statement is a joke and not a profound display of ignorance:

                While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.

                Yes. Both are festering cesspools of corruption and fascism, from the top all the way to the bottom.

                The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.

                LOL

                Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.

                The only thing 'fascist' is our government. Clearly you have no idea what the word even means.

                You really, really need to open your eyes. I am really shocked that in 2012, there are people out there who still believe as you do.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Pooua ( 265915 )

                  Western nations, including the U.S. and Australia, have their problems, but China has a far more repressive system. We allow people to meet peacefully together on a regular basis. We don't send tanks to run over peaceful protesters. We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

          • It is about preserving our way of life. The US is a corporatist two party state (nominally democratic). The US and Australia are both corporatacies whose constitutions share similar ideas. The US has played a big part in maintaining their ideals, mostly through force.

          • The high pitched whine you hear is Marx spinning in his grave. Lenin would be too, if he wasn't being held down.

            China is what happens when technocrats come to power in a largely illiterate country. Call it any ism you like, but it can be reduced to "democracy? Steam engines don't need democracy, and they work perfectly."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by poity ( 465672 )

          OP didn't say being in bed with DC is ok did he? Is it in any way possible in your world that one could be against both things at the same time? Imagine someone replying to a SOPA thread saying "why is this so bad, but nobody yells and screams when China censors information about political protest?" Think of all the responses accusing that person of going off-topic/trolling/making excuses!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EEPROMS ( 889169 )
      I had an interesting chat with our MD and while he was in China they told me a very interesting story. He was having dinner with a HK investment and manufacturing company and they were talking about jobs and supplying product within China and dealing with main land officials. So the story goes one day an official comes to the factory in China and during negotiations he asks them to fabricate equipment that will fail at a set time. The logic being that once the product fails people will have to buy another o

  • national security (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    National security is a serious issue. I can't see any reason to expose our national information infrastructure to a foriegn owed company ... no matter where they're from.

    • Re:national security (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:55AM (#39459075)

      Except of course that the WTO agreements prevent exactly this kind of national/regional/local concerns and specifically prohibits tender discrimination on the basis of national origin of the tendering company. Welcome to the brave new world.

      • Re:national security (Score:5, Interesting)

        by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:29AM (#39459165) Homepage

        OTOH I know a lot of private companies that have banned huawei. I seriously doubt at this point that this is a coincidence.

        Personally I think they've been caught red-handed in a high-profile network about 2 years ago and the big guys employ people who know the details about this.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          True enough on this. Remember it's not paranoia when you know they're after you(or your stuff, or secrets), it's being smart and protecting your ass.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by X.25 ( 255792 )

          Personally I think they've been caught red-handed in a high-profile network about 2 years ago and the big guys employ people who know the details about this.

          You think "they've been caught red-handed"? I mean, do you have ANY information to share, except what your sixth sense tells you?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Duh Nortel, where have you been?

      • Re:national security (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @03:39AM (#39459485)

        Australia is usually very open with China and acknowledges them as a crucial trading partner; often bending over backwards to accommodate Chinese business, especially the current government.

        I would think that there must be some serious intelligence information motivating this public slap in the face for a top-tier chinese company.

      • WTO are not the king pheroh dictator of EARTH.

        They can go screw them selves.

        I mean, why would Iran trust an Israeli company to run their computer control systems for their Nuke plants?

        Or would Israel trust an outsourced Muslim corporation from Dubai to run their water infrastructure?

      • there is a can opt out for national security i bet and telecoms infrastructure is probably covered under that and Huawei was caught bang to rights pirating cisco hardware and IOS

    • Re:national security (Score:5, Informative)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:16AM (#39459139) Journal
      Australia has done that in the past.
      http://www.australiandefence.com.au/DB96D390-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9 [australiandefence.com.au]
      Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board let SingTel purchase Optus i.e. Singapore's government-owned telco got the Optus C1/D joint civil/military communications satellite.
      The dedicated military payload paid for by Australia is used for satellite communications in Australian and south-east Asia.
      The payload came from the USA and Japan was the contractor ....
      The main problem for the NBN would be the US/UK/NZ/Canadian/Australian telco choke points- who gets to mirror off every packet in and out of Australia.
      An embassy or joint space project can be contained. Communists deep in your ducts long term is not a good idea.

    • why waste billions in buying routers, start and grow your own industry, give grants to local companys to make routers.

      Oh Australia is lazy, it rather spend $2b on USA routers, than spend $1b making its own.

      Its not like its hard to make your own stuff, give lots of $$.

      Just dont use 90% outsourced coders from agencies , hire them fulltime.

  • Their source code? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Majik Sheff ( 930627 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:46AM (#39459049) Journal

    Don't they mean Nortel's source code?

    • No you mean Cisco's (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:57AM (#39459085)

      Cisco alleged Huawei stole their tech, but had to drop the suit after the chinese gov't made it uncomfortable for Cisco.
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/24/cisco_sues_huawei_over_ip/ [theregister.co.uk]

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Majik Sheff ( 930627 )

        I typed the post on a mobile. I didn't feel like running a list of telecom companies the Chinese government has ripped off.

      • See here [lightreading.com] and here [slashdot.org].

        But the Cisco incident is relevant too.

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          lightreading.com doesn't say that Huawei is behind it. I was curious about the relationship between Huawei and Nortel. So, I dug around the Internet and found this relevant article see here [allaboutnortel.com]. It says that Nortel's products were shoddy enough to cause it to lose a lot of clients. So, it proposed a joint venture with Huawei in order to resell Huawei products as Nortel products. But it went bankrupted before the proposal happened. Sound like Nortel was trying to steal Huawei's source code to save itself f

  • Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you have? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sarusa ( 104047 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @12:59AM (#39459091)

    Huawei is an arm of the Chinese government. Officially and in practice. There are members of the Chinese Communist Party permanently assigned to it who monitor correctness and suggest policy (under pain of death). They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

    The only real question is whether anyone gives a damn what's going over Australia's National Broadband Network. If not, then Huawei may be cheaper.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

      Any company or government will spy and steal if they think (reward > (risk * fine)). The way to deal with this is to require the source code to be inspected and encrypt anything important because you never know who is listening along the fiber (in fact, even if you own the ISP and the fiber there still could be someone listening on your traffic, so encrypt it anyhow).

      • Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sarusa ( 104047 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:46AM (#39459199)

        This is true - we know AT&T forwards all your packets to the NSA, pissing itself with its eagerness to do so, and the other ISPs probably do so as well.

        In theory you should encrypt everything strongly. But in practice, people overwhelmingly just don't do that.

        So this is the Australian government, who we know wants to inspect every single packet sent in Australia (since they've said so), deciding they want to limit it to companies under their thumb instead of under China's thumb.

      • Re:Is it paranoia if it's true? But what do you ha (Score:5, Informative)

        by bertok ( 226922 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:56AM (#39459221)

        Having a copy of the source provides only minimal protection. See for example the Underhanded C Code Contest [xcott.com].

        It would be an almost trivial exercise to introduce a vulnerability into a code base that wouldn't be picked up easily by either human or mechanical inspection. Even if such a vulnerability was detected, the vendor could simply claim that it was a coding error, fix it, and get away with it unpunished. By adding a few dozen such vulnerabilities, the vendor could play this game for years without anyone ever being able to prove wrongdoing.

        There's no hope of isolating the equipment or software from the Internet either, because the use-case here is a National Broadband Network, the whole point of which is to create a new public Internet backbone.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by emt377 ( 610337 )

          Source code is useless unless you also build and flash it yourself. Otherwise they can trivially give you one source base to review while they install something quite different in the hardware they ship you. Clearly the vendor has to deal with building, flashing, and support. They know the hardware, have the development resources, QA, etc. If they can't be trusted then they're not a viable equipment source.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      US makers are no less entrenched into US government and government in them. The only difference is xenophobia.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What's more, China has just forced lawyers to swear allegiance to the Communist Party.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17470818 [bbc.co.uk]

      That's not just massively distasteful in regards to activists and regular people, that has enormous implications for doing business in China.

      Business means contracts, and contracts means contract lawyers. Making lawyers hold allegiance to the Party and not the rule of law is a major spoke in the wheel of doing business with China. Australia has already found the current sy

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jgrahn ( 181062 )

      Huawei is an arm of the Chinese government. Officially and in practice. There are members of the Chinese Communist Party permanently assigned to it who monitor correctness and suggest policy (under pain of death). They will spy and steal tech if the Party thinks it's useful. That's just how they roll.

      Citation needed. This isn't North Korea. Huawei's (and for that matter the party's) primary concern is making money, and I doubt this cloak-and-dagger stuff is a good way to accomplish that.

      • When companies are required to be closely integrated with the government as they are with China, government involvement as claimed (and verified) cannot be escaped.

        Doubt it all you want at your peril.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chrb ( 1083577 )

      To some extent, every large telecomms provider is an arm of its national government... e.g. AT&T was part of the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program. [wikipedia.org] and in return for cosying up to the government, AT&T gets billions a year in tax breaks. [arstechnica.com]

      The real question is whether or not Huawei equipment has backdoors that allow spying, and also whether equipment from other vendors has such backdoors. A vendor should not be disqualified based on vague speculation about what might be possible. There

  • Ban consumer electronics too? (Score:4, Informative)

    by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:03AM (#39459103)

    Huawei already supplies 3G USB dongles, cheap android phones and tablets to the Aussie consumer. If that's the case, isn't the Chinese govt already harvesting data from our private citizens? Hmmm, paranoia much?

    Conroy might partner with the Chinese on his great firewall of Australia - apparently they have expertise in such matters. ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Private citizens is fine, its the new rooms or past "exchanges" near the mil bases in suburbia that may prove more interesting.
      Australia does not really have a lot of sat bandwidth so most of its everyday mil chat might go down unique telco like networks.
      Or expose its neat new US packet sniffers to another layer of contractors and risk US anger...

    • Put them all on the IMEI blacklist. Problem solved.

  • Maybe the Oz govt doesn't want to censor us? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by barv ( 1382797 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:10AM (#39459119) Journal

    I just bet that Huawei networking has really neat built in ways to censor all sorts of content from pirated stuff, child porn, maybe even (gasp!) political comments. So maybe our (Oz) government really isn't interested in censorship?

    Nah. On second thoughts, they were just too dumb to notice the opportunity.

  • I'd say the gov't is a bit late in acting...

    Lots of Huawei mobile Internet products are already in use across AU.

  • Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sethstorm ( 512897 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:25AM (#39459157) Homepage

    Questions over the legality of the Government's move are already being raised.

    ...by people who support Huawei, most likely. Unfortunately for Huawei's defenders in Australia (and outside of Australia as evidenced by those), it puts them in the open as standing against their own country and having a greater allegiance for the PRC.

    Stand strong Australia, and resist the urge to bend to the will of China. They will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

    • They [sic: China] will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

      If China maintain that Australia has contravened the Marrakech Agreement, I would expect China to consider trade sanctions such as refusing to export consumer tech to Australia or a temporary ban on resources from Australia.
      The former type would be a minor inconvenience for distributors, retailers and consumers that will soon be countered by parallel importing and pressure from the contracting party (i.e. Apple).
      The latter type would severely cripple our economy, having a devastating affect on the markets

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by X.25 ( 255792 )

        If an American company placed a tender, we wouldn't think twice. If a technology branch of the NSA placed a tender, we would, as diplomatically as possible, tell them to shove their tender up their ass despite being our closest ally that we already share intel on our citizens with.
        I wonder if we had an open-source, open-specification requirement in the tender if all these companies would still bid.
        I would suspect all those, except the ones with something to hide, would.

        Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?

        I mean, are you insane or what?

        Peoples' memory is the shortest living thing on this planet.

        • Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?

          I am sure they will. I believe a tech company is more likely to design their products to perform their advertised primary function (i.e. a router does routing) and then will add, to the best of their ability, hidden secondary functions (i.e. kill switch, backdoor, mirroring) at the request of the government.
          A government agency with a tech arm, OTOH, is much more likely to design a product from the ground up whose real purpose is covert infiltration of a specific target, yet, disguise the product as somethi

      • Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by emt377 ( 610337 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:48AM (#39459359)

        No, China wouldn't consider a trade war. They'd appeal to the WTO, claiming Australia makes an unreasonable claim to Article XIV.1.a. But clearly 1) this only affects Huawei, not all Chinese network equipment makes, 2) in fact is only coincidentally affecting China with Huawei being a Chinese entity, 3) a government buying secure routing equipment can discriminate based on reputation of vendors.

        The bigger issue is how China can be permitted to continue to allow its state to run businesses while remaining a member of the WTO. It's a problem illuminated by Huawei: the business is suspect, which makes the Chinese government suspect. Which then makes ALL businesses the Chinese government meddles in suspect. Which is tantamount to discrimination based on origin when they're shown the door. The WTO was never intended to include countries like China where there is no constitutional separation between affairs of state and private business.

      • China needs Australia more than vice versa (natural resources and agricultural products trump consumer goods). So no, China would not start a trade war with Australia. Just like no one would start a trade war with Saudi Arabia (or with Iran for that matter if it wasn't a prelude to a shooting war).

    • Re:Not a smart move to openly object to this ban. (Score:5, Funny)

      by X.25 ( 255792 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:36AM (#39459333)

      ...by people who support Huawei, most likely. Unfortunately for Huawei's defenders in Australia (and outside of Australia as evidenced by those), it puts them in the open as standing against their own country and having a greater allegiance for the PRC.

      Stand strong Australia, and resist the urge to bend to the will of China. They will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.

      Are you ok, mate?

      I've seen members of various sects being more sane than you.

      Here we are, year 2012, and the same people who've been stealing and helping their cronies are still scaring the "free world" in the same way like they've done for past 60 years.

      Don't mind them putting the cash in pockets, just please be scared of evil .

      Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with 'national security' is incredibly dumb.

      This has to do with kickbacks and lobbying.

      Oh look - there is a communist hanging off your chandelier!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by toriver ( 11308 )

      Or people who support free trade. It's not about any perceived allegiance to the PRC but "allegiance" to Huawei's competitors. Do you think every country needs to be protectionist and block foreign companies from competing with national ones?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trogre ( 513942 )

        Wait, now I'm confused.

        Are you saying that you would *want* hardware controlled by the PRC government in your core network infrastructure?

        Do you live in China?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by toriver ( 11308 )

          No, I am saying that people who think Huawei hardware is controlled by the PRC government should cut down on the pot.

    • This is an idiotic move, it will mean less competition and even more expensive prices. At worst they should have let them bid and just dropped their tender in the bin, by removing them completely it will just allow what little competition there is free reign to overcharge us.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      It's a question of wasting money supporting more expensive white companies while hating on the yellow man (or people from a country with one party, rather than two parties who collude and take actions almost indistinguishable from each other).

  • Paranoia? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NetNinja ( 469346 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:51AM (#39459211)

    Who needs to be paranoid when companies whos bottom line is to send out work to a low wage paying country so they can turn maddive profits at the expense of national security?

    Cisco doesn't seem to care so why should any other company?

    If you think for one moment that the Chinese governement doesn't have spies working in those factories and making coppies of every single chip and installing doomsday chips in those electronics you are very naive.

  • That's a classic case of the 'Better safe than sorry' principle. They're just being prudent. Why take on risks when you can avoid it? It's really the same thing as an employer refusing to hire someone with a criminal record.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's a classic case of the 'Better safe than sorry' principle. They're just being prudent. Why take on risks when you can avoid it? It's really the same thing as an employer refusing to hire someone with a criminal record.

      Huawei isn't a criminal, not by a long shot. There are concerns that Huawei must be an arm of the Chinese government, without any evidence and mostly spread by those who have something to gain by Huawei's demise.

      Let's call a spade a spade. A much better analogy is an employer refusing to hire a black teenager back in the 1950's, why take a risk when you can avoid it. The tragic incident which caused the death of Trayvon Martin should give us pause to not prejudge people/companies based upon historical stere

      • Let's not turn this into some weird racial thing. There are very good reasons to be skeptical of letting non-allied governments, or indeed any external governments, near major national communications hardware - especially if it's likely to find use for defense or other strategic purposes.

        One of the single biggest problems with things like this is the hardware side of things: how do you make sure that the black-box hardware you're buying (and any silicon chip is exactly that, at least until you open it up an

  • they are obviously worried about having a chink in their IT infrastructure,

    sorry I couldn't resist it

  • So just forget we sold a large, critical chunk of the Telstra to China, and pretend that any company that does tender won't have Chinese ownership.

    Not to worry - the ONA is monitoring what China monitors, with the additional benefit that JIO doesn't have to do it because then JIO would be monitoring rather than, um, who was it JIO does the go-for-ing for again? (sigh)

  • its and about spying and national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gedw99 ( 1597337 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @06:31AM (#39459853)

    The reason that india, Oz and the US blocked using chinese core networking equipment is because that don't have access to the firmware or can check that what they are told is the firware really is what is burned into the hardware.

    Also they can have other dedicated stuff in the hardware that n one would know about.

    so they worry that their core networks can be hacked by the chinese government.

    this is why they are banned.

    this is NOT a solution though. We have to leanr to co-operate.
    The ONLY way that these types of crazy situation can be fixed is by social and democratic change world wide

    G

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @06:46AM (#39459899)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close