“New: In 2010, KPN commissioned a study into the behavior of Huawei in the mobile network. The findings were so serious that it was feared for the continued existence of KPN Mobiel if the conclusions were to be leaked”
https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/1383285413767303170
I can’t access the reporting (paywall and in Dutch) or the actual report. But it sounds like Huawei retained admin access to eavesdrop on calls in the Dutch network, against explicit agreements.
I’ve seen this pattern of story, and I know that it will be hailed by some as “the smoking gun proof of malice” and others will point out that the Huawei code was just a smoking pile of sloppiness, and really: it doesn’t matter.
If you don’t trust the person who builds your communications infrastructure, then you can’t expect secure communications infrastructure. Stories like this are just reminders of that basic fact, not proof of malice.
Someone more ambitious than me offers a translation :) What I don’t see in the article is any evidence that “eavesdropping” actually happened. Just a capability. Am I missing it?
https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1383452674801115140
If I’m China and I really am using Huawei to infiltrate Western networks, my incentive is to *not* blow the op during the early stages when carriers can still choose other options. That’s why I read these stories as incompetence, not malice.
Anyway here’s the story in English and the key graph. You can believe Huawei or not, but if they were obviously lying I imagine the reporting would say so. 
The impression I get is that these news stories are engineered by people who are opposed to Huawei. And I think there are legitimate arguments for their position.
But I also think if these folks had any concrete evidence of wiretapping, you’d be reading about it.
But I also think if these folks had any concrete evidence of wiretapping, you’d be reading about it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
