Thread: Canada arrests Huawei CFO at US request

Huawei: Chinese media accuses US of 'hooliganism' over Meng Wanzhou arrest
State-run papers label Washington a ‘despicable rogue’ as Japan moves to ban telecoms company from government contracts

Chinese media have lashed out at the US over the arrest of senior Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, accusing the country of using “hooliganism” to suppress the Chinese telecom giant at the centre of what is turning into a major diplomatic incident.

State-run China Daily said the arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer appeared to be part of US efforts to contain the company, which is the world’s largest telecoms equipment provider, as well as its second-largest mobile phone maker.

“One thing that is undoubtedly true and proven is the US is trying to do whatever it can to contain Huawei’s expansion in the world simply because the company is the point man for China’s competitive technology companies,” the editorial said.


John Bolton says he knew in advance Huawei executive would be arrested
Read more
State-run tabloid Global Times said: “Obviously Washington is resorting to a despicable rogue’s approach as it cannot stop Huawei’s 5G advance in the market.”

The rhetoric came as Japanese media reported that the country was effectively going to ban government purchases of telecommunications products from Huawei over fears of intelligence leaks and cyber attacks. The report follows a decision by the US this year to ban government purchases of Huawei gear.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...wanzhou-arrest

Originally Posted by Norton

The lady is not just some CEO shumck. She is close to the highest power in China and the CEO of it's biggest company. Her arrest is the equivalent of arresting Tim Cook.

Chinese reaction should and will be strong.

Spot-on ^. Indeed, that lady is not just some ordinary CFO schmuck. The backroom boys are really beginning to lose it.

May the heavens have mercy,...and redeem us,...from the aftermath results of their ^ foley. Sigh!

Cancelled,...due to keeping compliance w/ the forum

Huawei officials accept British intelligence demands

"Embattled Chinese telecoms giant Huawei has agreed to British intelligence demands over its equipment and software as it seeks to be part of the country’s 5G network plans, the FT reported Friday.

Huawei executives met senior officials from Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), where they accepted a range of technical requirements to ease security fears, according to the FT’s sources.

The NCSC said in a statement that it was “committed to the security of UK networks, and we have a regular dialogue with Huawei about the criteria expected of their products.

“The NCSC has concerns around a range of technical issues and has set out improvements the company must make,” it said.

The Chinese telecoms provider has come under scrutiny over the last few weeks, with one of its executives arrested in Canada last Friday on a US extradition request, raising fears of an escalation in the trade war between China and the US.

Beijing called the arrest of chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou a “despicable rogue’s approach” and part of a campaign to stymie China’s high-tech ambitions.

Over the summer, Australia barred Huawei from providing 5G technology for wireless networks over espionage fears.
New Zealand followed suit in November but said the issue was a technological one.
Britain’s largest mobile provider has also joined the global ban.

On Wednesday, BT announced it was removing Huawei’s telecommunications equipment from its 4G cellular network, following a warning from the head of the MI6 foreign intelligence service that singled out the Chinese company as a potential security risk.

But Robert Hannigan, former head of the GCHQ intelligence agency that deals with cyber-security, on Friday warned of “hysteria” over Chinese technology.

“My worry is there is sort of a hysteria growing… we need a calmer approach,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
British intelligence agencies have not “reported a backdoor or malicious intervention” by Huawei, and any official criticisms so far are of “incompetence rather than malice,” he added."

Huawei officials accept British intelligence demands | Ebru TV Kenya

Different title and slant but more details and dates of the specific NCSC requests/meetings from the Irish Times (reprint from the FT):


Huawei caves in to UK’s security demands

China’s tech giant agrees to address serious risks found in its equipment and software

"Huawei has caved in to demands by UK security officials to address serious risks found in its equipment and software in an attempt to avoid being shut out from future 5G telecoms networks.

At a meeting this week between Huawei executives and senior officials from GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre, the Chinese telecoms provider agreed to a series of technical demands which will change its practices in the UK, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

Huawei has also agreed to write a formal letter to the NCSC outlining the company’s agreement to urgently address the issues, first raised in a critical report in July by an oversight board which monitors the testing of the company’s kit before approving it for use in UK networks.

The move comes after the US government stepped up efforts to persuade western allies to shun the world’s biggest telecoms provider when upgrading services to new, fifth-generation technologies, amid fears over cyber espionage.
Senior UK security officials have repeatedly stressed that their concerns are related to technical deficiencies and not the company’s Chinese origins.

But the arrest on US sanctions-busting charges of Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, founder and chief executive of the Chinese telecoms group, last weekend has only raised the international pressure on the UK to take a tougher line.

The commitment by Huawei to appease the UK’s concerns reflects the need for the Chinese group to tackle concerns where it can amid intense scrutiny of its business by western security organisations. It also represents a major coup for the government as it would require a significant shift in Huawei’s business practices.

Western security chiefs have been unusually vocal in recent days to highlight concerns over Chinese technology groups. Alex Younger, head of MI6, the British intelligence service, said the UK faced a tough decision over whether to allow Huawei to supply technology for its 5G network.

Huawei has been slow to react to the concerns raised in the July report that highlighted “shortcomings” in the Chinese telecoms equipment provider’s engineering processes that exposed British telecoms networks to risks. It also identified long-term challenges in mitigation and management of those risks.

The issues raised include the use of out of date open source software developed by third parties that remained in the code used in some of Britain’s networks. Old software can be vulnerable to cyber attacks.

A wider issue relates to the way that Huawei develops code and equipment, according to multiple people that have used the Chinese company’s kit. Huawei distributes the development of its equipment across multiple teams to speed up the process and reduce the chances of technology being stolen.

That system has served Huawei well as it has grown but has become an issue for governments looking for clearer lines of accountability when auditing equipment.

John Delaney, an analyst with IDC, said that Huawei appears to have responded to the pressure.

“It [HUAWEI]is now the incumbent in the UK and it clearly wants to stay there,” he said. “It makes sense for them to at least pay lip service or to put in place tangible procedures to appease those concerns. They won’t want the contagion to spread to other countries.”

Huawei said that the oversight board report “identified some areas for improvement in our engineering processes. We are grateful for this feedback and committed to addressing these issues. Cyber security remains Huawei’s top priority, and we will continue to actively improve our engineering processes and risk management systems”. The NCSC declined to comment. - Financial Times"


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ands-1.3723549

Another unfounded spying/backdoor/dodgy hardware story which appears to be easily recoverable.

Even the ex-head of GCHQ was exacerbated, "But Robert Hannigan, former head of the GCHQ intelligence agency that deals with cyber-security, on Friday warned of “hysteria” over Chinese technology."

One wonders why the NCSC did not have the meeting or were not forthcoming with these "concerns" and published the companies acceptance prior to the announcement of Huawei being dumped from BT's tender list.

In my experience it's common in software design to assign a number of programmers or teams to write modules of a complete programmes.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I believe he is referring to the National Intelligence Law, article 7:

Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of [emphasis added]. The state shall protect individuals and organisations that support, cooperate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work.

Not sure if this is what you are referring to, no link supplied, but this is what I have found ref your "believed" source:
National Security Law of the People's Republic of China (2015) [Effective]

Source：MOD Editor：Huang Panyue 2017-03-03


Article 7 National security shall be maintained in accordance with the Constitution and laws and the principle of socialist rule of law by respecting and safeguarding human rights and protecting citizens' rights and freedom in accordance with the law.

https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/national-intelligence-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-draft/

Somewhat different from your, unlinked source.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Maybe there's a hint in the word "draft"?

My apologies, wrong link, my post above now updated with the "effective" tag and correct link.

Thesection ofinterest, doesn't appear to be any different from the draft.

I don't suppose you have a link to your "official" source, or not of your, "quote"?

Originally Posted by Cujo

You're right, he desperately wants it not to be true.

Updated link, now the "effective" Chinese MOD site. Just to assist you to move from the ignorance group to the educated group. My pleasure.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Her legal team also pointed out that while SkyCom was once a subsidiary, Huawei divested from the company and Meng vacated her seat on SkyCom’s board of directors. They also argued that Iranian sanctions were complex and SkyCom’s civilian telecommunications equipment sales likely weren’t in violation of any rules.

"At least 13 pages of the proposal to MCI, which involved expanding its subscriber billing system, were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried the company’s logo, according to documents seen by Reuters. In a statement to Reuters, Huawei called it a “bidding document” and said one of its “major local partners,” Skycom Tech Co Ltd, had submitted it to MCI.

The statement went on to say, “Huawei’s business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the U.N., U.S. and E.U. This commitment has been carried out and followed strictly by our company. Further, we also require our partners to follow the same commitment and strictly abide by the relevant laws and regulations.”In October, Reuters reported that another Iranian partner of Huawei last year tried to sell embargoed American antenna equipment to Iran’s second largest mobile operator, MTN Irancell, in a deal the buyer ultimately rejected. The U.S. antenna manufacturer, CommScope Inc, has an agreement with Huawei in which the Chinese firm can use its products in Huawei systems, according to a CommScope spokesman.

He added that his company strives to comply fully with all U.S. laws and sanctions.
Huawei has a similar partnership with HP. In a statement, the Palo Alto, Calif., company said, “HP has an extensive control system in place to ensure our partners and resellers comply with all legal and regulatory requirements involving system security, global trade and customer privacy and the company’s relationship with Huawei is no different.”

The statement added, “HP’s distribution contract terms prohibit the sale of HP products into Iran and require compliance with U.S. and other applicable export laws.”

As it's a Reuter's opinion piece one can always finds holes and unsubstantiated innuendo.

The date of divestment might be useful. The date of her seat vacation also. But are mysteriously left unpublished.

I presume you have never been involved in a tender proposal with a "partner" who includes deliverables supplied by your company, real or services, to the partner company?

The legal obligation is between the "partner"/their client. All of the "partner's supplier have contracts with the "partner" company. Not the ultimate receiver of the real/services offer. Who has entered into a legal contract with the "partner" company.

Huawei partnered with companies all over the world it seems. Huawei's partners include HP........., shall we assume the HP management.............., due to being a "partner" of Huawei, are equally to be arrested and charged?

Originally Posted by Cujo

Crown prosecutors argue Meng violated section 380 of Canada’s criminal code, which pertains to fraud.

"SECTION WORDING

380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or (b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars. "

Criminal Code of Canada - section 380(1) - Fraud

One wonders if a "partner" is liable or "every one" who has dealings with the accused company? One also suspects there are plenty of Canadians/........... who would fall foul, if the decision to prosecute was taken by the Canadian law system.

For example, are all the investors in companies who are made bankrupt due to ........ are they equally liable for committing the offence, the companies suppliers, the companies bankers, the companies supported politicians, political parties who received donations for election expenses.........? Not usually, IMHO.

As you may now see, the link between the Chinese woman and the charge seems somewhat tenuous.

Originally Posted by Cujo

In an interview with Fox News, the former prime minister Stephen Harper said Justin Trudeau should ban Huawei from Canada.
“These are organizations, ultimately tightly tied to the Chinese security apparatus, and we think there are some real, serious issues there,” said Harper. “The United States is encouraging western allies to essentially push Huawei out of the emerging 5G network, and my personal view is that is something western countries should be doing in terms of our own long-term security issues.

I don't suppose you have a link to the "evidence", a politician with similar protection of "opinion" as most politicians, he has published publicly?

Or shall we conclude that, the politician has no evidence and it is just his unsubstantiated and possibly only his "highly likely", personal view"? Due possibly to him being in the pocket of a competitor of Huawei or having his own dirty deeds made public by a foreign or local entity?

Which in reality does appear to be the SOP of western countries these days in all foreign affairs.