Partnering with Huawei is riskier than you think – Asia Times

The US governments ongoing offensive against Chinese tech flagship Huawei is sometimes portrayed as ham-handed American protectionism.This is also true of Washingtons restrictions on ZTE and several other Chinese surveillance-product companies.

The sanctions extend to companies supplying chips to Huawei and are also designed to dissuade or prevent companies and countries from using Huawei to build their 5G networks an area where the Chinese firm is a world leader. Many allege that Washington is attempting to cripple the Chinese player in order to allow US firms to catch up.

But as someone who has worked in computer and networks technology in the US, Japan and Korea, and as someone who is by no means a Donald Trump supporter personally, I welcome his administrations initiative in the area.

In 1988, with a then-freshly minted MBA, I made a career switch. Thanks to that switch, I was given deep dives into some of the arcane intricacies of computer and networks technologies.

Among those intricacies, no area is more complex than network security.As we surf the Internet, we take for granted the mind-numbing security challenges and confirmations taking place in real time as computers and network components work in tandem to assure efficient and secure communications.

But no matter how well designed the technology, it is ultimately susceptible to human overrides overrides that are intentional and often illegal.

Human risk factors trump the finest engineering.It would take a book even to briefly cover all these factors and that book would likely be out of date by the time it could be published.

But to mention a few concerns that have been linked to Huawei and other network providers: There exist trapdoors in operating systems and even in firmware that are routinely (though inappropriately) used by client companies system engineers as shortcuts to do ongoing maintenance.

If these shortcuts are unknown, the systems are safe. But once discovered, entire networks and datasets are endangered. And the shocking truth is that many of the risks are represented by in-house or contracted staff.

It was no accident that whistleblower Edward Snowden was hired as a systems engineer by a National Security Agency contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton. That gave him the run of the cyber office, and the ability to circumvent various safeguards.

Moreover, trapdoors can be purposely built into software and firmware code to allow a vendor or government agency access.Similarly, software keys for data access are sometimes intentionally shared with government intelligence and security agencies for national security reasons, such as during wars on terror, wars on drugs, and others.

Some technology providers refuse or resist this kind of cooperation demand from government agencies.Other companies do not. And even without hidden trapdoors and surrendered software keys, mischief is limited only by human creativity.

I have witnessed a networks benign features being used to red flag or trigger back-office computers to initiate activities totally unintended by the networks provider.

More commonly, a hacker will look among the various security levels of schemes found in computers operating systems, network security protocols and any other conceivable gateway when a personal computer, or even a smartcard, is verified.

That verification is an interaction within a security scheme which in turn provides a conceivable entry point for the bad guys.

In this regard, one may argue that it really doesnt matter if network technology is American, German, French, Finnish or Chinese.That is a fair argument.

However, there is a key component even more basic to all of this sophisticated, if at times vulnerable, technology.That component is human trust.

When a technology buyer selects a vendor, the assumption indeed, the demand is that the vendor is on the same team as the buyer.That means the vendor will do whatever is necessary to protect the buyers legitimate interests.

The situation is like trusting the engineering of your car, regardless of which country you may drive it.Such trust relationships are givens in all buyer-seller relationships or should be.

This issue is not simply about companies, it extends to countries. And while all companies, it could be argued, may compete with some degree of equality in related business global sectors, not all countries are the same, compete the same, or have the same systems of governance.

Even though China is undertaking capitalism with Chinese characteristics it is still firmly ruled by the Communist Party of China (CPC).The partys management and potential interference in all and any aspects of Chinese life and commerce has to be acknowledged.

Being a good party member is being a compliant party member, and compliance with the state is a feature of corporate practice. On Wednesday, the partysUnited Front Work Department issued guidelinesto strengthen the guidance and supervision of private businesses, while demanding that owners and managers keep up to speed on party tenets and President Xi Jinpings thoughts.

In liberal democracies, such as those found in North America and Europe, it is expected that technology providers will push back or even openly challenge their governments secretive snooping into customers networks and data.That is not the case of China.

Moreover, it is worth notingthat Huaweis founder and chairman, Ren Zhengfei, was a deputy regimental chief in thePeoples Liberation Army and remains a senior member of the CPC.While Chairman Ren has repeatedly assured the public that he would do his utmost to protect his customers, one needs to be mindful of his relationship with his government.

Huawei has already been forced to deny allegationsof its technology being used by the Xinjiang internal security forces for data analysis, and that companies operating in the Xinjiang regionsupplying Huawei use forced labor.

Even if the above and other allegations of intellectual property theft and patent infringement are false, another ongoing episode related to Huawei and the geopolitical complications that surround it should be born in mind by those who reside in democracies with rule of law.

That episode is the current hostage game being played out involving Chairman Rens daughter,Meng Wanzhou, former Huaweichief financial officer, and two Canadians arrested for unspecified national-security violations in China.

The US government accuses Meng of violating long-standing sanctions on Iran, including against the exportation of US technology goods into Iran. On August 22, 2018, a New York court issued an arrest warrant for Meng to stand trial in the US.

On December 1, 2018, Meng was arrested in Canada at the request of US authorities. Judicial proceedings are currently underway over her possible extradition to the US.

In China, in the same month,Beijingdetainedtwo resident Canadians, MichaelSpavor andMichael Kovrig,on charges of endangering the state. The detention of the two has been widely analyzed as being linked to Mengs detention.

But while Meng has been under house arrest and must wear an ankle detection device while reading books and doing her oil painting, Spavor and Kovrig were reported at one time to be held in isolation without being allowed outdoors, kept under lighting and surveillance 24 hours a day, with hours of interrogations per day.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has noted that during regular ChineseForeign Ministry press briefings, various spokespeople routinely mention the fate of the Canadians and that of Huawei founders daughter in the same response whether theyve been prompted to do so or not by reporters.

Party media outlets have been barefaced in demanding that Canada release Meng if the Canadians want their former diplomat and businessman back.However, the Canadian government and judiciary are firewalled, preventing ad hoc compliance. The Chinese government has no such constraints.

Some may say that concerns about CPC involvement in Huawei technologies in customers networks have yet to be proved.That may be true.But more broadly, we have the above example of the CPC taking action on behalf of Huawei, suggesting that the two parties are connected at the hip.

Furthermore, when theft is copying rather than physical removal, the crime is usually discovered if at all only after the fact.

At the end of the day, technology providers are guardians of their clients most valuable data and competitive advantages.Everyone wants those guardians to be willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill the mission.

While Chinese guardians may be generally loyal to their customers, in a country where business and politics are so tightly interlinked, the limits of this loyalty to overseas customers whose governments may be at odds with Beijing could prove minimal.

Tom Coyner worked for more than 20 years in the US, Japan and Korea in computer systems and large networks hardware and software, including as a Japan country marketing director and as Korea country manager.Currently he provides business consulting services to companies dealing with the Korean market as well as contributing text and photography to international media.

Asia Times Financialis now live. Linking accurate news, insightful analysis and local knowledge with the ATF China Bond 50 Index, the world'sfirst benchmark cross sector Chinese Bond Indices.Read ATFnow.

Continue reading here:
Partnering with Huawei is riskier than you think - Asia Times