Category: Huawei

  • China’s state-run media outlets claimed that American chipmaker NVIDIA had for the first time listed the Chinese tech company Huawei as its “biggest competitor” in its latest annual earnings report.

    But the claim is misleading. While NVIDIA did mention Huawei in the report for the first time, it was only cited as one of a number of competitors, not its biggest.

    On Feb. 24, China’s state-controlled Reference News said: “The U.S. chip giant identified Huawei as the ‘biggest competitor’ in its report submitted this week to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.”

    Reference News cited a report by the German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, or DW, published to back its claim. 

    Keyword searches found the report cited by Reference News published on the website of DW Chinese on Feb. 23. It claimed that Nvidia lists Huawei as the biggest competitor in its annual report.

    1.png
    Chinese official media such as  Reference News claimed that NVIDIA identified Huawei as its “biggest competitor” for the first time in its latest annual earnings report. (Screenshot/Reference News)

    Santa Clara, California-based NVIDIA is a leading technology company known for its powerful graphics processing units, or GPUs, which are used in video gaming, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. 

    Shenzhen-based Huawei is a global telecommunications and electronics company known for its smartphones, networking equipment, and leading advancements in 5G technology.

    While becoming a top producer of both telecom equipment and electronic devices, Huawei was caught in the crossfire of the U.S.-China trade war, suffering a steep drop profit after being blacklisted by the American government for buying unapproved parts from U.S. suppliers.

    The claim about NVIDIA listing Huawei as the biggest competitor has been also shared in China’s state-run Global Times. Other Chinese language media such as Singapore’s Lianhe Zaobao and Taiwan’s United Daily News published similar reports.

    NVIDIA’s report

    On page 9 of NVIDIA’s annual earnings report, it does mention Huawei in four of the five market areas where the company faces serious competition, including as a supplier of GPU hardware and as a cloud service featuring in house AI. 

    2.png
    NVIDIA’s earnings report does mention Huawei as a competitor in several market areas, but does not describe it as NVIDIA’s “ largest competitor.” (Screenshot/NVIDIA official site)

    However, the relevant section of the report does not describe Huawei as either its “biggest competitor” or as a “major competitor,” and instead lists it as one amongst many multinational tech companies such as U.S. companies like AMD and Intel. 

    Other Chinese companies mentioned as competitors in the 2024 report  include Alibaba and Baidu. While this is the first time Huawei has appeared as a noted “competitor” in NVIDIA’s annual report, Baidu appeared in the 2023 report while Alibaba was listed as early as 2022.

    Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang and Malcolm Foster.

    Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Rita Cheng for Asia Fact Check Lab.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A “double standard” has emerged in Australia’s technology regulations, with step-in powers for cyber spooks to take control of a company’s network similar to those at the heart of concerns that led to companies like Huawei being banned from 5G networks, the AIIA has warned. In a speech to the Tech in Gov conference in…

    The post Heavy-handed tech regulation leads to ‘double standards’ appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.


  • The United States is about militarism. Its economy is largely based on the military-industrial complex. It has hundreds upon hundreds of military bases in lands around the planet. Yet, despite a bloated military budget, the US fails to care for all its citizens, certainly not the millions of homeless, poor, and those unable to afford medical procedures because they are without medical insurance; however, the US does house and feed its soldiers, marines, and air-force personnel abroad. Yet, when it comes to its veterans there is often a price they must pay. Nonetheless, what must not be forgotten is the far greater price paid by the victims of US aggression.

    The US claims full-spectrum dominance. US politicians make bellicose statements about which country the US will attack next. And when a pretext is required the US will fabricate one. (See AB Abrams’s excellent book Atrocity Fabrications and Its Consequences, 2023. Review)

    I asked Wei Ling Chua, the author of 3 books including Democracy: What the west can learn from China and Tiananmen Square’s “Massacre”? The Power of Words vs Silent Evidence, how aggressive US posturing impacts China.

    Kim Petersen: It is clear that the US is waging an economic war against China. However, based on the bombast of several American military and political figures, the US is also pining for a military confrontation. US Air Force four-star general Mike Minihan said his gut warns of a war with China in 2025.  The Chinese claim to most of the South China Sea has caused the US to assert the right to freedom of navigation by sailing its warships off the Chinese coast. But when has China ever denied any ships the right to freely traverse the South China Sea? And as for the disputed territoriality in the South China Sea, why does the US arrogate to itself a supposed right to meddle in the affairs of other countries even those thousands of kilometers from the US shoreline? The Brookings Institute informs that of potential threats worldwide, “China gets pride of place as security challenge number one — even though China has not employed large-scale military force against an adversary since its 1979 war [what even Wikipedia calls a “brief conflict”] with Vietnam.” Consider that the media organ of British capitalism, The Economist, complains that “People’s Liberation Army (PLA) fighter jets keep staging recklessly close, high-speed passes to intimidate Western military aircraft in international airspace near China.” The magazine doesn’t blink at the risible scenario it has described: foreign fighter planes near China. Isn’t there sufficient airspace for American military jets in the US? Or sufficient coastline to practice freedom of navigation with its warships in US waters?

    The US is so fixated on the economic rise of China that it even scuppered a multibillion-dollar deal its ally France had to sell submarines to Australia and replace it with nuclear submarines to be supplied by itself and the United Kingdom — AUKUS. The obvious target of the nuclear subs: China. China’s foreign minister Qin Gang has called on the US to put the brakes on to avoid confrontation and conflict. What does all the militaristic hoopla directed at China portend?

    Nonetheless, SCMP.com reported on 24 March 2023 that China has developed a coating for its submarines — an “active” tile based on giant magnetostrictive material (GMM) technology — that “could turn the US active sonar technology against itself.”

    Also, the Chinese navy has many more ships than the US (around 340 Chinese navy ships to the 300 US navy ships) and that gap is widening.

    Given that the rise of China is not just economic, but that China has also developed a staunch defensive capability, what do the military experts say about China’s capability of defending itself against an American attack? Such an attack would also be insane because war between two nuclear-armed foes is a scenario in which there are no winners.

    Wei Ling Chua: The US is the most warmongering country on the planet with every inch of its territory looted from others. Like former US President Jimmy Carter told Trump in a (2019) phone conversation: “US has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history.”  The US is also the only nuclear power ever to use such a weapon of mass destruction, which it did on 2 populated civilian cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So, any military threat from the US cannot be taken lightly.

    In addition, one should also note that the Chinese military grouped itself into 5 defense regions (Western defense region, Northern defense region, Central defense region, Southern defense region, and Eastern defense region), they are all within China and defensive in nature; whereas, the US military grouped itself into 6 command centers covering the entire world [Africa Command (AFRICOM), Southern Command (covering Latin America), European Command (covering Europe, part of the Middle East and Eurasia), Central Command (covering the Middle East), Indo-Pacific Command (covering the entire Asia Pacific Region, and half the Indian Ocean), and Northern Command (covering the US, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and Bahamas)]. The US military is obviously imperialistic in nature.

    However, the good news is that after WW2, the US-led military coalition never won any war in Asia. Their military coalition was badly beaten in the Korean War and Vietnam War (both of which involved China). The latest sudden and messy US withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of brutal occupation demonstrates that the US military is not as powerful as perceived. It appears to be as Mao famously described: “A Paper Tiger.”

    I believe that if the US regime is informed and rational, it will not dare to start a war with China on the Chinese doorstep. The reasons are quite obvious:

    1) After the Korean and Vietnam wars, the US never dared to directly attack any well-armed country such as North Korea, Iran, USSR/Russia, etc. For example, in 2020, Iran fired 22 missiles at 2 US airbases in revenge for the cowardly US assassination of their minister (Qasem Soleimani) while he was on an official diplomatic visit inside Iraq. Despite the Pentagon’s initial playing down of the severity of the Iranian attacks, it was later admitted that 109 US troops had suffered brain injuries. The US did not dare take further military action against Iran.

    My perception from this incident is that the US is too confident — that no one dares to take military action against their military bases across the world.So, they are complacent and failed to invest in underground shelters in those 2 airbases. So, it is reasonable to assume that such weaknesses are likely to be widespread across all the other US military bases across the world.

    2) All the countries the US and NATO attacked after the Korean War and Vietnam War were developing countries. It was only after these countries had been weakened by years of economic sanctions and were without a decent air and sea defense system (e.g., Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc). One should note that the US invasion of Iraq was carried out only after over a decade of UN weapons inspection, disarmament, and economic sanctions. That is after the Iraqi economy and its advanced weaponry were destroyed. As a result, US fighter jets were able to take their own sweet time, flying low, flying slowly to identify targets and bombs. So, the US military weapons have yet to be tested in confrontation with a militarily powerful country, one armed with air and sea defense systems.

    As for the perceived US military might and superior high-tech weaponry, I believe that the following examples will shed some light on whether the US is more militarily powerful or China:

    Firstly, we should thank the United States for its ongoing military actions across the world, and its marketing tactics to promote its image as a superpower, with the intention to sell weapons and to scare the world into submission from its position of strength. Below is a series of US announcements of new weaponry that had frightened the Chinese; as a result, China commissioned her scientists to invent powerful weapons with ideas initiated by the Americans. E.g.,

    Hypersonic Missiles

    • The US is the first country that commissioned a hypersonic bomber program capable of nuking any country worldwide within an hour in the early 2000s. Such an announcement scared the Chinese and Russians. Yet, whereas the US failed miserably and decided to shut down the program in early 2023, we have witnessed that Russia and China successfully developed hypersonic missile technology.  Ironically, given the US failure and China’s success in the technology, the Washington Post published a report titled “American technology boosts China’s hypersonic missile program” to attribute China’s hypersonic missile success to US technology. (When one comes by this type of baseless claim of US technological superiority over China, besides having a good laugh, I am really speechless at the unbelievably shameless nature of the American propaganda machine)

    Laser Guns

    • The US is also the first country which commissioned a laser gun program. In 2014, the US announced that the weapon was installed on USS Ponce for field testing with success. However, in 2023, CBS News reported that the Pentagon spent $1b a year to develop these weapons and stated that  “Whether such weapons are worth the money is an open question, and the answer likely depends on whom you ask. For defense contractors, of course, a new generation of powerful military hardware could provide vast new revenue streams.” The irony is that in 2022, China had already exported its laser guns to Saudi Arabia and that country was reported to have successfully gunned down 13 incoming attack drones.

    One ought to recall what happened to Saudi oil facilities in 2019 when drones attacked. The report at that time was: “US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, the main air defense of Saudi Arabia that was so useless last Saturday, cost $3m apiece.” In addition, there is the recent bad news that the vaunted US Patriot missile system was put out of action by a Russian hypersonic missile in Kiev on the 16th of May 2023. The report’s title was “A Patriot Radar Station and five missile batteries destroyed in Russian hypersonic strikes”. Obviously, the mendacious US military-industrial complex was successfully ripping off a lot of its allies which paid super high prices for their inferior products.

    F-35 “World Most Advanced” stealth fighter

    • The US is a country that loves to boast about its military capability even when the concept is still in an imaginary stage. E.g., introduced in 2006 as the world’s most advanced stealth fighter, the F-35 is also regarded as the US’s most expensive 5th-generation warplane. However, in the past 5 years alone, more than a dozen F-35s crashed across the world despite not operating in a war zone. In 2019, Japan confirmed that an F-35A jet had crashed, causing the remaining F-35s in Japan to be grounded. In 2021, two F-35s were damaged and grounded by a lightning strike in the sky over western Japan. Forbes magazine ran a report titled “Japan is about to waste its F35s shadowing Chinese plane” with this statement: “The stealth fighter is too expensive, too unreliable, and too valuable for other missions to waste it on boring up-and-down flights.” In 2020, The National Interest reported that “The F-35 Stealth Fighter still has hundreds of flaws.” And in 2021, Forbes magazine reported, “The US Air Force just admitted the F35 stealth fighter has failed.” In 2022, the Chinese [People’s Liberation Army] PLA detected an F-35 over the East China Sea and confronted it with their J20 fighter jet, and according to US Airforce General Kenneth Wilbach: “American Lockheed Martin F-35s had had at least one encounter with China’s J-20 stealth fighters recently in the East China Sea and that the US side was ‘impressed’.” These cases demonstrated that the US’s supposedly most advanced “stealth fighter” is visible to Chinese radar technology.

    Space Technology/Rocket Engines

    • Despite the US’s stringent technology bans against China, including even attending international space conferences in the US, China is now the only country to have independently and successfully built its own space station. The International space station (ISS) was created by a number of countries with the Russian contribution being the most crucial part of putting the station and astronauts (with Russian rockets) in space. However, as usual, the American media likes to bullshit to save face. So, in 2020, when the American media reported the news that NASA paid the Russians $90m to send an astronaut to the ISS, the title was: “Despite SpaceX success, NASA will pay Russia $90m to take US astronaut to ISS”. The irony is that in 2022, the US imposed the strictest economic sanctions against Russia including confiscating Russian public and private assets in the West and banning Russia from the SWIFT payment system due to Russia’s military action in Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion. As a counter-US sanction measure, NASA was forced to pay Russia in rubles (2 billion) to take the American astronaut back to Earth. These two incidents should be enough evidence that SpaceX’s space technology is not as advanced as its public relations. The Russians and the Chinese appear more advanced than NASA/Elon Musk’s SpaceX in transporting astronauts to and from a space station.

    Many people may not have noticed that, in 2015, the US ordered 20 rocket engines from Russia. So, in 2022, when Russia counters US-Ukraine war sanctions with a ban on selling their rocket engines to the US, TechCrunch+ reported the situation with an honest title in recognition of the reality: “Russia halts rocket engine sales to US, suggests flying to space on their ‘broomsticks’.”

    GPS Vs Beidou Global Navigation/positioning systems

    • Global positioning technology is a vital part of many advanced weapon systems including land, sea, and air travel: In 1993, the US government falsely accused a Chinese commercial cargo ship with the registered name ‘Yinhe’ of transporting chemical weapon materials to Iran. The US government then cut off Yinhe’s GPS for 24 days to strand them in the Indian Ocean and forced them to allow US officials to board the cargo ship for inspection and nothing was found. Again, in 1996, the PLA conducted a series of missile tests in the Taiwan Strait, and the US again suddenly shut down the GPS used by the PLA. Both incidents led to the Chinese government’s investment in its own Global positioning technology.

    In 2003, the cash-strapped EU invited China to participate in their Galileo navigation satellite project. However, after China transferred €200 million (US$270 million) to the project, in the name of security concerns, China was forced out of major decision-making by the EU in 2007. The irony is that China managed to develop its own Global positioning system (Beidou) faster than the EU’s Galileo project. As a “revenge” perhaps, on a “first-launched, first-served” international wavelength application rule, China successfully registered the use of transmit signals on the wavelength that the EU wanted to use for Galileo’s public regulated service. The New York Times reported the story with a title: ‘Chinese Square off with Europe in Space’.

    One may notice that the US’s aging GPS satellite system has been having a lot of problems in the past years. Just do a web search under GPS breakdown, GPS jamming, GPS outages, GPS error, GPS problems, GPS malfunction, etc., to find out about the reliability of the GPS system.

    Contrariwise, the Chinese Beidou navigation system is a Chinese owned technology with new functions and apparently more precision than the GPS. For example:

    • The Chinese Beidou can be used for text communication between users, while the GPS cannot. So, Huawei became the first company to add satellite texting to their phone device (Mate 50). The significance of such a new communication feature is that, during wartime, the PLA command center or between individual PLA soldiers will be able to communicate with each other with no blind spot. That will enable rapid battlefield intelligence gathering and transmission.
    • In addition, if one ever uses a Beidou navigation device while driving, one should notice that the device’s screen displays the position of the specific car on a specific lane. Should the driver change lanes, the screen will display the changes instantly. That is an indication that Beidou’s navigation system is far more accurate and advanced than the GPS in terms of positioning precision and processing speed. This may imply that the Chinese satellite-guided missiles will be more accurate than the US GPS-guided missiles.
    • A report by Japan Nikkei in 2020 headlined, “Chinese Beidou navigation system has surpassed American GPS in over 165 countries.” That indicates that the Beidou system is a tested, mature navigation technology.
    • A recently published report of a series of computer simulations run by a research team in China revealed that China needs only 24 hypersonic anti-ship missiles to destroy the newest US aircraft carrier and its accompanying warships.

    I consider that China is superior in technology to the US. For example, a recent Australian Strategy Policy Institute report acknowledged, “China leads the world in 37 out of 44 critical technologies.”

    Of course, unless the US regime is crazy enough to start a mutually destructive nuclear war, there is little reason to believe that the US would be able to win a war with non-nuclear weapons on China’s doorstep.

    Winning a war is not just about weaponry: the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Afghanistan War have already demonstrated that a coalition of the most militarily powerful imperialistic nations can be defeated by the people of a lesser-armed nation fighting for their freedom. So, beyond the use of advanced weaponry, the factors that determine who will win a war include:

        • the unity of the citizens,
        • the fighting morale of the soldiers,
        • the logistical support,
        • the military strategies,
        • the ability to manufacture more weapons with speed to sustain a long war;
        • the manufacturing supply chains
        • the energy supply and reserve,
        • the food supply and reserve,
        • the money to sustain a war, and
        • the neighboring countries’ attitude toward the warring parties.

    So, when one goes through the above list, one should easily come to the conclusion that the US is in a  disadvantageous position to travel across the Pacific Ocean to attack China on its doorstep.

    *****
    Upcoming: What does US militarism augur in the context of Taiwan?


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This week’s News on China in 2 minutes.

    • End of peak cases of COVID-19
    • U.S. boycott affects energy transition
    • Huawei makes progress in 10nm microchip manufacturing
    • World’s largest national park system

    The post End of Peak Cases of COVID-19 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When a staffer at the independent media website Iwacu in the central African state of Burundi tried to visit the outlet online in late October, they received an error message instead. “Hum. Nous ne parvenons pas à trouver ce site;” the site could not be found  – even though the local media regulator had promised to unblock it in February.

    A report published in August found Burundian networks using technology from Chinese company Huawei to block Iwacu and other news sites. The report was funded and published by PrivacyCo, the parent company of privacy research and advice website Top10VPN.com. Co-authors Valentin Weber and Vasilis Ververis, PhD candidates at the University of Oxford and Humboldt University of Berlin respectively, told CPJ in a recent video call about their research tracking Huawei equipment known as middleboxes to internet networks in 72 countries, 18 of which were using the devices to block news or other websites. (Weber has since joined the German Council on Foreign Relations as a cyber research fellow.)

    In Cuba, the report found the sole state-controlled internet service provider ETECSA using Huawei technology to block independent news website Cubanet, among others; authorities in Cuba have subjected Cubanet and its journalists to frequent restrictions. Readers can bypass blocks using virtual private networks (VPN), but many news outlets must shift their work to other sites or social media. In Egypt, a number of outlets have gone out of business after being blocked.   

    Middlebox devices can examine the packets of data that facilitate browsing and communication using a process called deep packet inspection. DPI has benign, even essential functions, like making connections faster or caching content for future access, but it can also be used to manipulate or filter information, the authors said. In the wrong hands, a middlebox could divert visitors to a rogue website designed to steal passwords or install malware, for example.

    Such intrusions are hard to detect, but the 18 countries in the report acknowledge blocking – notifying users via their browsers that the content they are trying to access is restricted – making censorship a starting point for researchers to assess whether countries are using middleboxes to undermine human rights, according to Weber and Ververis.  

    Glenn Schloss and Rob Manfredo of Huawei’s U.S. corporate communications team acknowledged CPJ’s request for an interview when the report was initially published, but did not subsequently respond to emailed questions.  

    The interview with Weber and Ververis has been edited for length and clarity.

    You describe Huawei’s middleboxes performing “online behavior management” – where does that term come from?

    Weber: It comes from Huawei marketing material relating to a specific middlebox, the ASG5000 series. We found it in a Chinese language source, so it’s our translation, but I think it matches the capabilities well – it can detect traffic and act on it, managing the behavior of [internet] users in various contexts and venues.

    Why are you concerned about the security implications of middleboxes on national networks?

    Weber: Important traffic is flowing through these devices but the policies [for the data Huawei receives from them] sometimes weren’t clear – what happens to the data, or whether it can be transferred further. For different continents or territories, we found a database location – in Mexico for Latin America for example – but you wouldn’t know what happens once the data is transferred there. 

    Ververis: An analogy for a consumer would be a cleaning robot that sends data to the vendor about the dimensions of your house. Hopefully it’s in good faith, but I would not be surprised if that data was being sold or analyzed [for other purposes].

    Should individuals on a network be concerned that a middlebox could access private information, or passwords, for example?

    Ververis: Usually you should not be worried when you’re visiting websites, especially websites that use some kind of encryption or secure layer [like HTTPS, which prevents others from reading or intercepting information exchanged between a reader and the websites that they visit]. We all know that you shouldn’t connect to open WiFi, [but instead] use a VPN or Tor [on untrusted networks], and [log in to accounts with] two-factor authentication.

    But it’s difficult to protect against a strong adversary. Let’s say you’re a journalist on a network that you don’t trust. The network can gain a lot of information from your connectivity, and middleboxes can [be used to facilitate a cyberattack].

    How did you detect that these middleboxes were being used to block websites?

    Ververis: We use open data from the Open Observatory of Network Interference, which collects network measurements from volunteers all over the world. When you’re sending and receiving a request from a web server you get back some metadata, and we were able to find the specific Huawei tag added to these responses. That might reveal the device, the model, sometimes the version. The middlebox we found had already been found in 2017 OONI research on Cuba.

    It’s only possible to do this research if the data is provided openly, the way OONI does. Other entities like Cloudflare and Google, or the transparency reports from social media companies, don’t help researchers and journalists find out what’s going on.

    You found 18 countries blocking content with middleboxes, up from seven in an earlier study you did in 2019. What does that suggest?

    Ververis: We have more data from OONI now than before, but censorship has [also] been increasing. It’s actually quite surprising that [so many countries] use the same device, so there may be more to unpack there – whether it’s cheap, or easy to deploy, we don’t know.

    Is Huawei providing maintenance on these devices or facilitating how they are used?

    Ververis: In general, infrastructure [used by internet service providers] should be maintained by the vendor. You usually pay for a license to keep using it [for a specified period].

    Weber: The devices report back to the vendor, sending error notices and other information, so the manufacturer might be incentivized to act on that, for example to provide software updates. We also expect that Huawei is likely to provide keyword lists or broad categories for blocking to the customers.

    Your report found websites in the news and media category were among those most subject to blocking – what do you take that to mean?

    Ververis: News and political advocacy were among the higher categories, though in some countries we have much more data than in others. There are [also] other [blocking] methodologies. In Cuba, they still use the Huawei middlebox, but they’re also deploying something else. Either it doesn’t have a tag or it’s the same equipment that’s been changed, or, most probably, other devices.

    The research is not conclusive, but our goal was to raise awareness. If one vendor and one device can do so much damage, what happens with the other dozens or even hundreds that are also out there?

    Weber: We uncovered the tip of the iceberg. If there has been some political censorship in a country, even if it’s just a few websites, we can expect there to be more. 

    Would you argue Huawei is more likely to facilitate censorship because of its origins in China, one of the most censored countries in the world?

    Weber: Like all other companies, Huawei is profit driven, which means they will sell anywhere they can make money. We’ve seen that Blue Coat Systems, a company based in the U.S., was selling to regimes that were questionable. There are very few international regulations that would inhibit any of these companies [from] selling wherever there is an opportunity.  

    [Editor’s note: Researchers at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab have reported products sold by Blue Coat Systems being used to censor and surveil internet traffic around the world in the past,  including in Syria in 2011, despite a U.S. trade embargo. The company – which has since been acquired and restructured, according to Forbes told the Wall Street Journal that the technology had been transferred without its knowledge.]       

    What is a company’s responsibility if it supplies a middlebox to a customer that uses it to censor news under local law?

    Weber: There are best practices to engage customers abroad and do risk assessments. I haven’t seen much evidence that Huawei does this.

    If you’re a manufacturer selling to law enforcement or government entities, you have to assess their human rights record. It’s too easy to say, “We don’t know how it’s going to be used.” We were able to find questionable use of the technology, a multi-million or multi-billion-dollar company should be able to as well.    


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Madeline Earp/CPJ Consultant Technology Editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Big crowds greeted Huawei senior executive Meng Wanzhou’s arrival back in China, which believes its show of strength against America forced Washington to back down in this three-year standoff. The biggest story of the weekend saw Meng released from house detention in Canada and returned to China, while Beijing subsequently released two Canadian prisoners it had accused of spying. The development brought an end to a horrific three-year saga for all involved.

    The post China’s ‘Hostage Diplomacy’ Wins appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Huawei Technologies executive Meng Wanzhou is flying back to China, after reaching a deal on Friday with prosecutors in New York that effectively resolves a US fraud case that had kept her in legal limbo in Vancouver for nearly three years. Shortly after Meng’s flight entered Chinese airspace, state broadcaster CCTV quoted foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying as saying that China’s position on the Meng Wanzhou incident has been “consistent and clear”.

    The post As Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou Enters Chinese Airspace, Foreign Ministry Slams ‘Arbitrary Detention’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Meng Wanzhou arrested for well over 1000 days. But… why? And what does her case have in common with Anne Boleyn?

    The post The REAL Reason Meng Wanzhou Was Arrested? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • This week’s News on China in 2 minutes.

    The post News on China | No. 60 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Australian government’s “unethical” and “illegal” ban of China’s global technology brand Huawei had contributed significantly to the deterioration of relations between the two nations, a senior Chinese diplomat says.

    China’s deputy ambassador to Australia Wang Xining delivered a scathing rebuke of the federal government’s banning of Huawei from participating in Australia’s 5G network in 2018, just hours before Foreign Minister Marise Payne said the Victorian government’s Belt and Road agreements with China would be torn up.

    In the speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, Mr Xining said the Turnbull Government decision to block Huawei had negatively impacted relations between the two countries,  to the detriment of local Australian firms and to the standard of technology available to businesses and consumers in Australia.

    Huawei Headquarters
    Huawei Headquarters, Shenzhen

    He accused Australia of “conniving” with the United States on the ban in an effort to prevent a challenge to that country’s “technological dominance”.

    “Australia was among the first to forcefully accuse Huawei of a possible security threat…but up to now there’s not a single evidence presented to substantiate such a claim,” Mr Xining said.

    “Australia was the first to ban Huawei into domestic telecommunications industry building. Then Australia even persuaded others to follow suit. By doing so I think Australia connived with the US in a very unethical, illegal, immoral suppression of Chinese companies.”

    In his recent book, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the decision to ban Huawei was a “hedge against a future threat”, rather than being based on “smoking gun” evidence.

    Australians have been left with a substandard service because of the ban, Mr Xining claimed.

    “As far as I know there’s not a single Australian tech communication equipment company that’s on par with Huawei in terms of technological advancement and sophistication,” Mr Xining said.

    “Australia is ranked second from the bottom in terms of market digitisation among OECD countries and the broadband speed here is much slower than some of the developing nations. Australian companies suffered a lot because of the unethical deeds of your government.”

    Mr Xining listed this ban as a key event in the deterioration of relations between Australia and China.

    Hours later on Wednesday night, Ms Payne announced that Victoria’s Belt and Road agreement with the China government would be scrapped under the federal government’s new foreign veto laws, the first time these have been used.

    In a statement, Ms Payne said the agreement, which allows for Chinese investment in Victoria and for local companies to participate in other China-led infrastructure builds overseas, was against Australia’s national interests.

    The agreement was non-binding and no financial commitments have been made under it.

    The Chinese embassy in Canberra quickly slammed the move.

    “This is another unreasonable and provocative move taken by the Australian side against China,” a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy said.

    “It further shows that the Australian government has no sincerity in improving China-Australia relations, It is bound to bring further damage to bilateral relations, and will only end up hurting itself.”

    The post Huawei ban to blame for icy relations: China appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The UK has banished Huawei from its telecommunications networks. Was this the result of US pressure, or domestic concern over the reliance Britain placed on the firm for critical infrastructure? “We welcome the news that the United Kingdom plans to ban Huawei from future 5G networks and phase out untrusted equipment from existing networks,” said […]

    The post Huawei’s Perceived Threat Explained appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.