Robin Harris
Yes
No
David Gewirtz
Best Argument: No
Audience Favored: No (79%)
Closing Statements
America needs strong competition
Robin Harris
While the government could do more to police the requirements for and use of telecom infrastructure, it is up to individuals and companies to take responsibility too. And that means spending time and money - which no one wants to do - to achieve a goal whose returns are difficult to quantify while they impact quarterly results today. How much value does Wall Street place on security spending? Zip, that's what.
Which is why we need a muscular government role in ensuring security. We need a set of ground rules that all competitors have to play by. Will the government do a perfect job? Of course not. But they'll do a better job than individual companies will, just as the FAA has given us much safer airplanes and the FDA has given us safer drugs.
Telecom is now at least as important as airplanes and drugs and deserves the same attention.
No reason to take a chance
David Gewirtz
Let this be a caution to other predatory companies and nations throughout the world. We welcome competing with international suppliers in the open market based on product and service quality. But if we catch you attempting to harm or spy on our citizens, our industries, or our government facilities, we will respond with all due speed and unity.
And the winner is...
Larry Dignan
Overall, these rebuttals may have been among our best yet. Robin and David both made points reflecting their sides, but also noted how politics, technology and infrastructure sometimes clash. I think the bottom line is that David's arguments won largely because there's enough Huawei uncertainty to warrant caution. In IT, there's a saying that you'll never get fired for buying IBM, Cisco and other large vendors.
Huawei will have to land some big U.S. accounts then get those customers to evangelize. Huawei may very well be a political punching bag, but IT buyers will ultimately decide whether it makes it in the U.S.
Talkback
watch the smart guys at work
How I wish that were true...
Oh how I wish that were true.
Robin mentions that
Good question - why haven't Huawei and ZTE offered that up? Are they afraid of something?
Thanks to melamine, lead, drywall,
Email Links
Must be because of a ...
Hungry...
Keep your friends close
To many GOOD American companies out there like Enterasys to bother with ZTE
Oy...
Also, David calls for Hauwei to be moved to completely open source. I doubt Cisco or other competitors would ever do that, so why should they?
Stryode, get real! That is an exploit, its going to be pretty tough for you to convince me that an EXPLOIT was put there purposely as a backdoor (esp, a buffer overflow). I mean, Windows has issues every time a new patch comes out, yet I don't see you questioning them.
I don't see you questioning Cisco Safeharbor for telling me NOT to update to a certain patch to ensure my network setup is stable.
It appears that once again the public can't distinguish GOVERNMENTS from CORPORATIONS. Yes, China is quite heavy handed in dealing with their own corporations as well as external corporations. But how many companies over here do research for the US government? How many former military men and cops are in high positions in the IT world in the US? How many corporations would fold if the government asked for information?
I agree with Robin, and add my own information:
It is a security professionals JOB to ensure that everything they put on their network is safe. NOT THE COMPANY THEY BUY FROM.
Also, it is a security professionals job to assume anything that is untested is unsecure.
Simple as that. It doesn't matter what company it came from, or what country. If your allowing compromised products on your network, your not doing your job. And sure, as scary as it sounds for an entire network to fall into the hands of the Chinese at the click of a button, use your technical knowledge and remember how improbable it is.