Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States China The Courts

Huawei Launches New Legal Challenge Against US Ban (bbc.com) 69

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Chinese telecoms giant Huawei has launched a legal challenge to a decision by US regulators to classify it as a national security threat. From a report: It comes after the US Federal Communications Commission put curbs on rural mobile providers using a $8.5bn government fund to buy Huawei equipment. The firm said evidence that it was a threat to security "does not exist." The move is the latest in a series of challenges between Huawei and the US. The company has asked the US Court of Appeal to overturn the decision. Speaking at a news conference at Huawei's headquarters in Shenzhen, the company's chief legal officer, Song Liuping, said: "The US government has never presented real evidence to show that Huawei is a national security threat. That's because this evidence does not exist."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huawei Launches New Legal Challenge Against US Ban More

Huawei Launches New Legal Challenge Against US Ban

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I'm not sure WTF you're talking about, Sisco is a third party benefit administration company.

      Reminds me of during the dot com boom when my friend's grandmother asked her for stock tip; she recommended Cisco, but the conversation was over the telephone, and her grandma ended up investing in Sysco instead. Now, Cisco would have been a good investment. But it turned out, Sysco was an even better investment, though not a technology company. Highest performing stock in the portfolio.

    • When someone screams: "YOU'RE MALICIOUS!" the only hope that you're not malicious is to use Open Source. Really. Why don't they? How else would we know their silicon and source code aren't infected in some way? How else can you trust any manufacturer that doesn't Open Source? Blind faith? LOL.

    • probably not far from the truth. The national security threat is simply that Huweui do it better for cheaper, via the unfair advantage of educating their children, therefore US companies cannot compete.

  • The obvious retort by the US government is to subpoena 100% of their source codes, VHDL, etc. Because the code is where the evidence either is or isn't. Then they sneak the code to the NSA, which uses it to develop exploits...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That's now how the law works. The government needs to defend its position on the information it had available to it when it made the decision. It could admit to stealing Huawei source code or reverse engineering binaries, perhaps in a closed courtroom.

      But it won't be able to demand access to all Huawei code, and it would be kind of pointless anyway since most of that code is kept in China where US law doesn't apply. Remember when the US courts tried to force Microsoft to hand over data stored in Ireland, ag

      • That's now how the law works. The government needs to defend its position on the information it had available to it when it made the decision.

        All the information available to it when it made the decision showed that there was a security risk. The only possible counter-evidence is in the sources. But it's obvious that equipment made by a foreign company under the direct control of a foreign government with which you have an adversarial relationship is a security risk, just as a big wooden horse built by people you're at war with is a security risk.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm sure that's what they will argue. Huawei will doubtless point out the user of other foreign equipment and it's offer to share source code, and also that even if such concerns were justified by evidence they wouldn't warrant a complete ban.

          Anyway the whole thing will probably be moot by the time the trial really gets going.

          • I'm sure that's what they will argue. Huawei will doubtless point out the user of other foreign equipment

            And if that other equipment comes from nations where the government literally embeds government officials in the companies to "help" make decisions, it's definitely a security risk too. We should grow our own.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cusco ( 717999 )

              As opposed to the one and only correct method, which is to embed corporate officials in government to "help" make decisions.

              • As opposed to the one and only correct method, which is to embed corporate officials in government to "help" make decisions.

                False dichotomy. Both are wrong. Government should set reasonable restrictions, determine guilt, and punish those corporations which violate the laws, up to and including termination of corporate charters. And no corporation should be permitted to become "too big to fail".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            A problem with "sharing source code" is the problem of proving the code embedded in the device matches the code provided. And it won't, even with maximal good intent, because there will be changes to fix bugs, to adapt to modified hardware, etc. And even if there weren't different compilers or different compiler options will produce different binaries.

            That they've got little reason to trust you is, of course, another problem.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              That's easy to fix. The source code compiled with a specific version of a specific compiler will produce a specific binary image. It's called a reproducable build. You then burn that onto a ROM chip and install it in your critical infrastructure.

              You can do it with flash memory so it can be updated too. They release bug fixes to you, you review them and build your own firmware image, sign it with your private key and deploy it. They don't even have the ability to push firmware to your hardware any more, the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Chromal ( 56550 )
          The US doesn't have an adversarial relationship with someone just because the hard right decrees it. China has been a willing partner with the US for decades, and continue to show great restraint even in response to the radical new preferences of the illegitimate fascist occupation of the US Federal government.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Sorry, but China and the US have been in an adversarial relationship that entire period. Adversarial doesn't mean hostile. You are in an adversarial relationship with anyone you're negotiating a deal with, even a close friend or relative.

            An adversarial relationship means one where you are seeking to maximize your gain from a proposed agreement. (And gain is not necessarily monetary. Frequently both can win.)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Chromal ( 56550 )
              And you think that it's somehow legitimate and honorable to use coercion with 'close friends,' 'relatives,' and trade partners when forming agreements? You think it's okay to abuse government power with dictats and decrees and corruption pulling the ropes and levers of liberal democratic power to achieve these underhanded results? You believe that's what the free world is about? You must be one of those confused Trumpist/Fascist illiberal criminal apologists, huh?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by HiThere ( 15173 )

                I didn't say coercion. I was denying that we were not in an adversarial relationship. Hostile relationships are (usually) small subset of adversarial relationships.

                Or, as an alternative reading, emotional arguments are a form of coercion. If you really feel that way, then using them is appropriate.

                FWIW, I don't accept dishonest methods as legitimate even in hostile relationships, but I acknowledge that may disagree with me. The optimal strategy is a nuanced adaptation of tit-for-tat. But one problem wi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        Now, what the US COULD do is require that any such devices deployed in the US had to submit their code and VHDL to regulators. I've worked on a couple products where we had to submit our entire stack into essentially a code escrow to various regulators before we could legally sell our devices in their region, and these were not even necessarily national level rules.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Huawei already added to do that, so yeah it's a good plan.

        • Or they could just say, "this money belongs to American taxpayers, we're only going to spend it on American products."

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            True, but that tends to piss off american billionaires. They want competition removed, but they do not want their supply chain impacted.
      • The thing is, Huawei shared the source code already with the UK. And they haven't found anything incriminating there (apart from bad code practices).

      • The government needs to defend its position on the information it had available to it when it made the decision.

        No. It does not. There really is no need for anything beyond a declaration of the decision.

        "Analysis of classified intelligence by US intelligence organizations resulted in the recommendation that a credible threat exists."

        That's it. That is the only justification needed.

        What was this intelligence, and how was it analyzed, and by whom? None of your business. It's classified. You do not get to know.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's pretty scary - the government can declare you and your business a national security threat and there is no legal recourse, no way to challenge it.

          Reminds me of the no-fly lists and secret black-site prisons.

          • That's pretty scary - the government can declare you and your business a national security threat and there is no legal recourse, no way to challenge it.

            Reminds me of the no-fly lists and secret black-site prisons.

            IF you are a US citizen you have the right to petition the government for redress.

            If you are not... then you can attempt to get your government to resolve the issue via diplomatic channels, but you have no personal recourse against a foreign sovereign government. As you are not a citizen, they do not owe you anything. Various governments have agreed to allow certain foreign nationals to petition for redress in certain circumstances, but it is not universal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mestar ( 121800 )

      So, first they give it to the government and then they give it to the government.

  • Funny how the chinese (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aurispector ( 530273 ) on Thursday December 05, 2019 @11:46AM (#59487804)

    feel it's perfectly ok to freeze the NBA out of their tv market costing them hundreds of millions of dollars because they didn't like a tweet sent by one guy even thouugh the league bent over backward to distance themselves from it. Yet somehow they insist on the US scrupulously following rules of law when it comes to a major national security issue.

    Commies gonna commie.

    • More like dics gonna dictate but yeah

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      The thing is we follow rules as legislated and interpreted with two parties currrently able to legislate.
      It's a far cry from ''the party'' able to control at will without any process.

      This is sufficient justification;

      https://www.cyberscoop.com/and... [cyberscoop.com]

      • That's the problem, globalism forces us to apply rules designed for internal use to what are defacto enemies. Globalism assumed some new world order where nationalistic interests are no longer relevant would materialize. Russia and China's regional annexations have put the lie to that assumption. All globalism did is reduce our technological advantage.

        Is the current situation as dangerous as cold war? Perhaps not. Is making China even stronger and more belligerent towards western allies in the region more d

    • feel it's perfectly ok to freeze the NBA out of their tv market costing them hundreds of millions of dollars because they didn't like a tweet sent by one guy even thouugh the league bent over backward to distance themselves from it. Yet somehow they insist on the US scrupulously following rules of law when it comes to a major national security issue.

      Commies gonna commie.

      That's an insightful comment.

      Of course, the Chinese rebuttal is that they have always been a nation of law. They are the world's foremost democracy and land of freedom ... on paper.

      The cautionary insight from criticism of the Chinese paper-tiger constitution and legal system is that the strength of a constitution and legal system is not the collective words on paper but the practical enforcement of those laws through the executive and judicial systems. The US is currently facing this very crisis, and how

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      It is almost like each nation is trying to do what is best for it and spinning hypocrisy.

      • Ah, moral equivalency. So refreshing!

        Ask the Uyghurs how life is in the camps! Why are the people of Hong Kong flying American flags at the rallies?

        Those people should be glad they are so much better off in the people's republic!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Ah, the old 'as long as we are not as bad as them, there is no moral cost to anything we do!' argument.
    • China is fascist

      • There really isn't any difference between communists and fascists. The real enemy is tyrants and always has been.

  • Interesting legal maneuver. US touts its legal foundations. The courts will need to make a ruling. Since US government grants itself wide latitude in national security guessing they can just cite a directive from government but this is Huawei ploy to see how decision backed and whether conflicts with WTO rules or other treaties. If so US should patch these holes. Huawei a secretly owned foreign company. Perhaps opening a public incorporated entity not subject to China law could offer an alternative. for ins
  • get some milage out of their bought dog politicians before their economy tanks any further.
  • is where our tax dollars go. Whether or not Huawei poses a security risk takes a back seat because we are talking about how our money is being spent.

    And I do not want my tax dollars going to China!

    I don't care if it costs twice as much, those funds should stay in the US. Huawei competes with American companies. American governments should only spend tax dollars to support American companies. If for some reason that isn't possible, turn to an ally (Sweden, Japan, Korea...) as a supplier. China shoul

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close