China’s reputation for cyber-espionage has cost the country’s largest network equipment manufacturer a shot at billions of dollars in infrastructure sales to Australia. The Australian government has moved to block Huawei from bidding on Australia’s approximately $36 billion-dollar National Broadband Network project.
The decision by Australia’s attorney general, reported March 26, was based on concerns raised by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization over the number of cyberattacks coming out of China, and that the company’s equipment would provide the Chinese government backdoors into the network.
“The National Broadband Network is the largest nation-building project in Australian history,” a spokesperson for Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon said in a statement, “and it will become the backbone of Australia’s information infrastructure. As such, and as a strategic and significant government investment, we have a responsibility to do our utmost to protect its integrity and that of the information carried on it.”
The Australian government has cause for concern. In 2011, the computers of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then-Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd were reportedly hacked by Chinese intelligence agents. And the US defense and intelligence community have continued to warn about China’s involvement in industrial espionage.
Huawei has been alleged to have benefitted from that espionage in past: Cisco accused the company of stealing technology from Cisco, but dropped its legal claims in 2004 after Huawei stopped producing a contested product. And the US Department of Defense expressed concerns about Huawei in a 2011 report to Congress (PDF) on Chinese military and security issues, because of the company’s close ties to the People’s Liberation Army.
Those connections haven’t stopped Huawei from selling network gear elsewhere. The company has won a number of large network infrastructure supply contracts in Europe, including equipment for the deployment of LTE wireless in the UK. And Huawei has been hoping to replicate that success in Australia by bringing in local political muscle: the board of the company’s Australian subsidiary is stacked with former government officials, and chaired by the former commander of the Australian Navy, retired Rear Admiral General John Lord. The company also sponsored trips to China for members of the leadership of Australia’s Liberal Party. In fact, it was believed that Huawei was the internal favorite after the technical team for the NBN visited the company’s headquarters in Shenzen in 2010.
So the announcement has come as something of a shock to the company’s Australian executives. “This sort of whole concept of Huawei being involved in cyber warfare, presumably that would just be based on the fact that the company comes from China and everybody in China isâwho’s involved with information technology is involved in cyber warfare,” said Alexander Downer, an independent director of Huawei Australia and a former Australian foreign affairs minister, told reporters for an Australian TV network. “This is just completely absurd.”
Britain is to allow one of its intelligence agencies to monitor all phone calls, texts, emails and online activities in the country to help tackle crime and militant attacks, the Interior Ministry says.
“It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public,” a Home Office spokesman said.
The proposed law has already drawn strong criticism, from within the ruling Conservative Party’s own ranks, as an invasion of privacy and personal rights.
“What the government hasn’t explained is precisely why they intend to eavesdrop on all of us without even going to a judge for a warrant, which is what always used to happen,” Member of Parliament David Davis told BBC News.
“It is an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary people,” he said.
New legislation is expected to be announced in the legislative agenda-setting speech given by the Queen in May.
Currently, British agencies can monitor calls and e-mails of specific individuals who may be under investigation after obtaining ministerial approval, but expanding that to all citizens is certain to enrage civil liberties campaigners.
Internet companies would be required to instal hardware which would allow the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), referred to as Britain’s electronic ‘listening’ agency, to gain real-time access to communications data.
The new law would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant, but it would allow it to trace who an individual or group was in contact with, how frequently they communicated and for how long.
The Sunday Times newspaper, which first reported the story, said some details of the proposals were given to members of Britain’s Internet Service Providers’ Association last month.
“As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the government’s approach to civil liberties,” the Home Office spokesman said.
Any proposed legislation changes are likely to face stiff opposition in both houses of the British Parliament.
A similar proposal was considered by the then-ruling Labour party in 2006 but was abandoned in the face of fierce opposition by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who are junior partners in the ruling coalition.
The proposed legislation could reflect the US Patriot Act, controversially introduced six weeks after September 11 in 2001, to expand the government’s authority to monitor the communications activity of its citizens.
While Nokia and ATT arenât yet taking explicit credit for a new campaign codenamed âOperation Rolling Thunder,â some poking around on the part of WPCentral.com shows that the above spot (which debuted during yesterdayâs NBA broadcasts) and its companions are perhaps the handiwork of Butler, Shine, Stern and Partners, which is hyping Nokiaâs Lumia 900 LTE smartphone prior to an April 8 launch.
The âhidden cameraâ spots depict one naysayer doubting the functionality of a poorly-censored iPhone, criticizing its fragility, inability to be used safely outside, and barrage of antenna issues. In fact, the above spot, âFragile,â compares using the iPhone to taking maybe the worst investment advice of 2007 (though the iPhone will bankrupt you in other ways). Following the spots to âsmartphonebetatest.comâ leads users to a microsite featuring a countdown clock, all three videos from the campaign, and a teaser trailer featuring SNL alum Chris Parnell (perhaps best known to the kids as 30 Rockâs âDr. Spacemanâ). Is the iPhone actually the result of a half-assed beta test gone awry? Conspiracy theorists, rejoice!
As Daily Tech points out, itâs a bit surprising that ATT is endorsing such a blatant attack on one of its top-selling products. Perhaps itâs a stroke of revenge for Apple giving Verizon and Sprint access to the iPhone. So, dear commenters, whoâs your money on in the great âWar Against iPhones,â Samsung or Nokia? Two more spots, including one mocking the late Steve Jobsâ âyouâre holding it wrongâ admonishment of 2010, after the jump.
Chris Soghoian thinks the law would be difficult to operate effectively without the co-operation of the United States which is the home to many of the social media and email companies which would be the target of surveillance: “Because Google has an office in the UK, the British government can bully Google.
“However, consumers are increasingly using services which are based outside the UK (often American companies) that have no UK presence. As such, without the assistance of the US government, this proposed wiretapping law is simply not going to be effective.
“We Americans seem to believe in a double standard – our government wants unfettered access to the private data of everyone else in the world, but at the same time, we’ll scream bloody murder if any foreign government gets access to the data of US citizens or our government.
“And to be honest, as long as everyone in the world relies on services provided by American internet companies, this double standard will continue.”
Cost
And Professor Peter Sommer from the London School of Economics told Channel 4 News he thinks the proposals do not appear too different from those presented by the last Labour government which were abandoned after intense opposition.
He says there could be a problem defining what is “content” and what is “communication”. Broadly, the information after the back slash of ‘http:/’ counts as content, with all that precedes classed as “communication”.
“This content / communication issue means that for example, an internet service provider would have to write filtering code for each webmail page – eg hotmail – so that only the communication rather than the content is visible. I think this would prove to be quite expensive to do.”
He also thinks the plans appear to be an expensive move which web users could quite easily circumvent: “There are at least four ways you can do that: 1. You can buy a SIM for your tablet or phone, using cash and then use your phone on that which would not be traceable to you. 2. You could use an internet cafe – even if they take your name there, what level of accuracy can you expect from a place where they charge 50p / hour? 3. You could use an unsecured wi-fi connection 4. Increasingly websites are using encryption by default – ‘https’ – they then have the same high level of encryption you get on e-commerce and bank sites.
“There are rumours this protocol can be cracked now but it would still be costly to do.”
Until the plans are published, no-one can say what will be their impact but the responses to the initial idea will no doubt help shape whatever eventually appears when the queen speaks next month.
The visitors from Wellington are adamant it was the former at their final training session on Friday, suspecting a Glory spy of filming their penalty practice.
Phoenix strength and conditioning coach Lee Taylor – who goes by the nickname ‘Pitbull’ – approached a man on a bank reclining directly behind the goal being used for a penalty taking session at the University of Western Australia’s playing fields.
Accused by Taylor of using his phone to film their penalty session, the suspect claimed he was in fact filming an athletics training routine that was being run concurrently.
The Phoenix, who started mixing up the direction of their penalty shots, were not convinced.
“A little bit cheeky, apparently he’s got a camera and he’s filming our penalties so we might have to switch our penalty takers,” said Phoenix captain Andrew Durante.
“But finals football, these things come into it and there’s all kinds of little shenanigans going on. We’re as prepared as we can be.”
Quipped coach Ricki Herbert: “What a great story it will be if we win on penalties.”
The third-ranked Glory host the fourth-ranked Phoenix in the A-League minor semifinal at nib Stadium on Saturday night, with the winner advancing to a preliminary final against either Central Coast or Brisbane.
As a sudden-death game, the result will be settled from the penalty spot should the scores be locked at the end of regulation and then extra time.
The Phoenix beat Perth on penalties in an elimination final in Wellington two years ago.
