Mic check....are my debaters ready?
We'll be starting promptly at 11am ET.
Robin Harris
Yes
No
David Gewirtz
The moderator has delivered a final verdict.
We'll be starting promptly at 11am ET.
I am for Yes
I am for No
Why is Huawei such a controversial company?
Otherwise they would be no more controversial than Sweden-based Ericsson, the #2 telecom equipment vendor.
I am for Yes
Huawei is controversial because the company is actively generating red flags among not only its customers and prospects, but also intelligence organizations and government legislators. Essentially, Huawei has been evidencing patterns of behavior that are often indicative of unethical practices and possibly espionage at both the corporate and nation-state level.
I am for No
Much is made of Huawei's murky connections with China's army and top leadership, but those aren't required for the insertion of back doors in telecom gear. As the Intelligence Committee (IC) report states:
. . . Chinese intelligence services need only recruit working-level technicians or managers in these companies. . . . under Chinese law, ZTE and Huawei would be obligated to cooperate with any request by the Chinese government to use their systems or access them for malicious purposes under the guise of state security.How is this different from US companies who do product development in China, which almost all do? How is this different from American companies under US law? It isn't.
I am for Yes
The U.S. has certainly conducted its share of witch hunts over the years. While some were justifiable, many were not. It's even harder to pin down acts of subtle espionage, especially when you and I are far out of the loop for this particular intelligence case.
That said, it's not just the American government acting paranoid about this particular company. Nations including the U.K. and India have also noticed questionable practices on the part of Huawei, as well as equally uncertain loyalties among its management.
So, yes, the security concerns are most likely warranted.
I am for No
Wall Street sold out the entire American economy for a few billion in bonuses.
The only company that benefits by locking out Huawei is Cisco, who maintains a large R&D effort in China.
Large multi-nationals like Cisco only remember they are "American" when they need boots on the ground. Otherwise they put their jobs wherever they get the most economic benefit. Why should IT bleed for Cisco?
I am for Yes
One would hope that U.S. government agencies and contractors -- who are often required to go with the lowest bidder -- would see past that requirement and buy with intelligence.
When it comes to business buyers, some buyers won't care and will just buy the least expensive gear. Others will think the whole fuss is unnecessarily paranoid.
Just remember: if a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I am for No
But the fact is that it isn't where the company is incorporated that matters: its where they do their R&D. And everybody has a presence in China.
Let's face it: this report is driven by fear of China's rapidly growing economy. The US had similar fears when Japan's economy was booming in the 80s - and where is Japan now?
I am for Yes
China is a "frenemy" nation, and while we're in deep debt to them, we're also in incredible competition with them. Plus, there are deep, emotional political disputes (like China's desire to assimilate Taiwan) that create constant disagreement among our diplomatic representatives.
If Huawei were spying on behalf, of, say, the U.K., we'd probably be annoyed, but we share a lot of information with them anyway. China, on the other hand, is a huge hotbed of cybersecurity criminals doing everything from running distributed denial of service attacks to vast CAPTCHA solving enterprises.
Plus, China has a measurable, if shadowy record of cyberattacks against the United States. Finally, as I wrote last year, many of the younger members of China's military (peers of Huawei's founder) have strong animosity to the United States, and are more likely to engage in skirmishes than their older leaders.
All told, China is going to be America's biggest challenge (I believe even more so than Iran) in the coming century. And that's why a company like Huawei, affiliated with China's military, is such a concern.
I am for No
Emerging market countries and their companies have gone with Huawei. Why do you think that is the case?
Huawei offers innovative products - they were 1st to market with end-to-end 100Gb networks - at good prices. Isn't that what free markets are supposed to provide? Except when a Chinese company wins, I guess.
I am for Yes
Also, smaller players aren't much of a target of opportunity for China, so they're not at much risk. We're the big, juicy target and China wants a piece of us. Even a tiny piece of the U.S. opportunity is going to be far greater than the entire scope of the "take" from emerging market countries.
I am for No
Everybody gets hacked, so the problem isn't Huawei, it's corporate IT's shoddy security practices, which Congress refuses to address because some campaign contributions or job offers might dry up.
The Republican congressmen blocking mandatory corporate security practices claim the cost would be too high for business. Baloney! The reality is that most hacking is done on non-Huawei equipment, and most of that is due to poor practices and buggy software.
Our entire infrastructure is at risk, not because of Huawei, but because of our laziness and indifference.
I am for Yes
But if you're responsible for your company's IT security, and you buy from Huawei (and you're not a Chinese company), you should probably find another career.
I am for No
You don't get to be the world's largest telecom equipment supplier without knowing how to build quality equipment.
I am for Yes
Well, if you believe Cisco, they are, a little...now. But that's after Huawei allegedly stole source code from Cisco and possibly other top vendors.
Why buy from such a questionable source when there are excellent, blue-chip vendors like Cisco? Further, if you're buying on behalf of the American government, my contention is you should never buy from non-U.S. vendors unless there is, absolutely, no other choice.
In each market Huawei participates in, American companies make better products.
I am for No
How do we explain the partnership of leading American companies like Oracle and Intel (and Symantec) with a company that is such an insidious threat to the security of the United States?
Oh, there's money to be made? Never mind, nothing to see here.
I am for Yes
That's a very, VERY big market.
I am for No
The Intelligence committee report did not identify any actual security threats. Instead, they focused on the fact that Huawei wasn't as forthcoming as they liked.
But what would happen if they asked the same questions of Cisco? Republican rants about anti-business policies, no doubt.
I am for Yes
That's American International Group, the company that got billions of dollars in American bailout money, and then proceeded to pay its executives enormous, multi-million dollar bonuses and send them on exclusive junkets, all on our taxpaying dime.
This news badly impacted AIG's ability to sell insurance, so what did they do? They changed their name. They're now 21st Century Insurance. While many people would think twice about buying insurance from AIG, most wouldn't blink at buying from 21st Century Insurance.
Oh, by the way, the American International Group was actually started in Shanghai, China back in 1919.
Huawei could get around their PR problem by calling themselves something else. Perhaps they'll go with American Technology Group.
I am for No
We can't police the world's uptake of telecom gear, as Huawei's pre-eminence proves.
But instead of driving towards a goal of trustworthy communications with untrustworthy infrastructure - the Byzantine General's problem cluster architects have grappled with for years - our do-nothing Congress is demonizing a successful Chinese company to help uncompetitive domestic companies.
I am for Yes
Seriously, though, there are two ways to look at it. First, if they're completely innocent and subject to an incredibly bad run of luck, it's unfortunate for them, but you probably don't want to buy their gear anyway.
Second, the more likely answer is that they're walking the fine line between legit and fishy. If they're practicing espionage at either (or both) the corporate and national level, they're not being victimized at all. They're just getting caught.
I am for No
They are already doing the right things in the UK. The IC report is correctly critical of private vendor-purchased certifications, so Republicans need to swallow their distaste of big government long enough to create and fund a government entity for testing and certifying critical telecom equipment.
Huawei should support this to level the playing field for all telecom suppliers. They should also become much more transparent, as the IC report also calls for.
I am for Yes
At this point, the only answer that would make sense is for them to throw open their doors completely and offer completely open gear. Open their facilities to international inspection. Open source everything. Go out of their way to provide complete (and constant) verification. And stop screwing around doing things that raise the hairs on the backs of IT and security professionals' necks.
But, honestly, I'm not really in a space to give Huawei advice. I'd rather give their sales prospects advice. That advice is this: Huawei is much too much of a risk. There are far better solutions. Just stay away.
Let China know that if it truly wants to compete with products in the international market, it has to play fair. Build better products, not sneakier ones.
And while I'm at it, I have something to say to China's leaders. This Huawei flap could have a negative impact on your other companies, as well. If we can't trust one company in a "managed" society, how can we trust the others? If you get caught conducting espionage through one of your industrial operations, it will damage the revenue potential of your other companies as well.
It's clear you want to bring your populace into the middle class. The backlash against this, if it ripples to your other industries, could seriously undermine your efforts.
I am for No
Our telecom and network infrastructures are security nightmares, no matter what country they come from.
Corporations want to foist the costs of security onto government, while the current Congress is ideologically opposed to expanding government. But the fact is that it requires a public/private partnership to improve IT practices and to test and certify critical IT equipment.
I am for Yes
The U.S. has all sorts of requirements for agencies and military branches specifying the companies or requirements for companies to purchase from. We have export rules, as well, that governs when certain technologies can leave the U.S. We also have (limited) consumer import rules, and if – for example – we deem a certain foreign crop unsafe for consumption, we block it at our ports.
Unsafe technology is no different. If a foreign nation wanted to sell us poisoned products (like the Chinese toys made with lead paint), we’d do our best to protect our consumers. Tainted technology should also be blocked. If a foreign vendor wants to sell in the United States, they have to sell quality products, not products designed to undermine, rip-off, hurt, or steal from their customers.
I am for No
And thank you readers for joining us. The debaters will deliver their closing arguments tomorrow; then look for my final verdict at 2pm ET Thursday. And don't forget to cast your vote.
I am for Yes
I am for No
Robin Harris
David Gewirtz
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.
Posted by Larry Dignan