If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to Chinese officials, and Europeans had to use one or the other, which would you choose?
Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Whether the European citizens want to be spied on is another matter.
If you're a European citizen or company you might well prefer to be spied on by the Chinese because there's little danger of the Chinese getting you kidnapped/extradited. Also, if your competitors and business contacts are more US than Chinese then the possibility of Chinese commercial espionage is perhaps less worrying than the possibility of US commercial espionage. It seems likely that US agencies sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I'm thinking more of contract negotiations than technological secrets, of course.
Getting equipment from several suppliers seems like the best plan, generally. You can then play them off against each other not just for price but also for openness and forcing the supplier to allow security audits. I've heard that Huawei has been very helpful in that respect, because of the pressure they're under.
> Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies.
Bingo, data sharing agreements between intelligence services.
NSA can't spy on US citizens but GCHQ can, and GCHQ can't spy ok UK citizens but NSA can.
Then just come up with a sharing agreement, and you're "golden".
>> sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example.
I've always wondered how that works so that employees dont know about the gov involvement. I suppose they could hire a "consultant", but someone in the company still needs to know dont they?
Between US and China? US, definitely. I don't exactly love the US, and would never want to live there, but China seems way more malicious than the US to me.
A cynic would say America probably already has half a dozen back doors, so what's one more?
There's no point choosing a Chinese back door over an American one if people you talk to are going to entrust your private messages to gmail/ icloud/ aws/ backblaze/ whatsapp.
The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.
The closer ally is likely to have SIGINT sharing agreements with your government.
FVEY exists so that the UK or Canada can legally spy on my communications and turn that data over to my government - which couldn’t otherwise get it without warrants and other pesky civil rights protections.
I think I’d rather take my chances with an adversarial government. I know they’d be spying but their ability to act on it is far more limited.
Are you American? If so, that is a false statement. DODI 5240.1-R says "[DoD components] Will not participate in or request any person or entity to undertake any activities that are forbidden by E.O. 12333 or this issuance." [1] The NSA, which has the SIGINT authority from EO 12333 [2], is a component of the DoD. A non-DoD entity, such as FBI, Treasury, etc, would (a) not have a foreign intelligence mission and would therefore go through normal court procedures to obtain warrants to collect your communications or (b) would need to coordinate through the executive agency (NSA in the case of SIGINT) to request support for foreign communications, which brings us back to the referenced DOD instruction requiring FISA approval.
The scenario you mention is an illegal anecdotal failure of the system to work as intended.
If we're still comparing the US and China, I'd say it's working a great deal better than whatever system is currently (not) protecting Uighurs from systematic unjust search and seizure.
That it's illegal doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not happening.
Moreover, there's much more than anecdotal evidence. The recently-released report on the Trump investigation proves this. Even if you hate Trump, there's no getting around the fact that the FBI completely abused the FISA court system, getting warrants by lying and misleading the court. This is a systemic problem.
I don't understand how it's relevant to point out that US government actions are illegal. The fact is that it's really happening, so in point of fact, the US is not categorically different from China. The difference, if any, is solely one of degree.
It being illegal is relevant because it is at least considered wrong to do. The degree of difference in what is considered acceptable (and also what is happening) between the two is so staggeringly different it isn't even comparable.
I will continue to disagree, until you can show me that someone is being punished for the illegal actions, and that further steps are being taken to prevent such transgressions in the future.
Today in America it is de facto legal for law enforcement to do this stuff. The fact that a piece of paper somewhere might say otherwise has no bearing on what's actually happening.
> The National Security Agency (NSA) has formally recommended that the White House drop the phone surveillance program that collects information about millions of US phone calls and text messages. The Wall Street Journal reports that people familiar with the matter say the logistical and legal burdens of maintaining the program outweigh any intelligence benefits it brings.
But I'm still very certain that I trust China's approach to data privacy a little less, since they currently do all of the following to happen, without suspicion of a crime:
* mass collection of blood and hair DNA samples for citizens living in minority regions
* literal government occupation of people's homes to take photos and collect information
* installing government cameras inside of peoples homes
* using that information to track, detain, and send ~1 million minorities to re-education camps without being charged or accused of a crime... where they are subjected to forced sterilization and torture.
The institutional attitudes to privacy are simply not comparable to the US. US authorities are not nonchalant enough about privacy that they think anything close to that that is remotely acceptable in the US.
You do make some good points there, but ultimately I don't buy it. The key thing is your citation of punishments for cops who "misused databases".
This isn't actually what's at issue here. The existence of law enforcement databases is a very different thing than the facility for spying on communications. And I still see no evidence that anyone has been punished for that, or that any active measures have been taken to protect abuses of those programs.
I would assume I am afforded less legal protections than a Chinese citizen!
But here's the thing: with the platonic ideal of "civil liberties" in mind that might bother me, but practically speaking? Chinese legal protections or threats have no bearing on me. None whatsoever.
I don't have a secret clearance. I don't know anyone who does. I don't know anything of significant value to the Chinese state that they couldn't use their existing sources to steal. My "deepest darkest secrets", at worst, would get me in trouble with my local government. They're not enough of a lever to make me an agent of China.
If, however, the information that could get me in trouble with my local government made it to my local government? That might be more of a concern for me.
Do you see why I might not care in the slightest what China knows about me, while simultaneously caring a great deal what my local government knows?
You're only thinking about it in the context of your own personal information, though.
There will also be effects on your peers, neighbors, and society around you. There are nation-state actors currently using stolen data for blackmail, extortion, and propaganda campaigns, to influence the economic and political stability of other nations.
Whether or not you are a direct target, you will be affected in some way. While you feel much more closely connected to your local government, they are not generally acting out of malice.
Even if I believed you - which I absolutely don’t - it’s completely irrelevant.
The intent of my government or of a foreign government has almost zero bearing on my life, for the life of any other average American – someone who does not have a secret clearance, is not committing major felonies, etc.
What matters is material condition, and the ability of that government to project force and change a person’s material condition.
If Chinese intelligence knows who my weed dealer is, or that I on occasion drive my car faster than the posted speed limit, agents of the MSS aren’t going to tail my car and pull me over. If proof that I’m pirating DVDs hits the great firewall I’m not going to get an email threatening me with legal action.
I don’t care if my government really thinks that weed purchases should be illegal or that driving 5 over the speed limit is a societal crisis or that pirating DVDs is a moral wrong: I care that they can project force against me and impact my life.
Sure, if you're not important, the data will not be used against you directly.
I'm sure you can concede that it will, however, be used against organizations, institutions, and people who are important.
Some of those will directly impact your life. This isn't a new idea, the power of both espionage and propaganda are well studied and long established to be effective.
If you're not in their jurisdiction, or neighboring jurisdictions (I've heard some rumors of events in e.g. Vietnam), they're not going to do anything to you. USA cannot make the same claim.
Private information can absolutely be used to coerce/blackmail/extort/compromise/propagandize from abroad. It happens many thousands of times every day.
That link seems to refer to the actions of some other nation, which nation is considered by many foolish people to be an ally of USA. But sure, if I were worth twelve figures and I didn't want my wife to find out about my mistress, I would avoid recording my infidelity on electronic devices.
No. But I regard my biggest threat as my own government, and if my choice per the GPs hypothetical is “less information to my government and some information to a foreign power” or “all collected data to my government and none to a foreign power”, the first choice is best for me.
Now, it may be fair to argue that the information collected from a 5G radio doesn’t mean much at all to my government. But I’d still rather depend on defense in depth.
I don't have an answer for this question but just to play devil's advocate, is this universally true or just sometimes true for governments and certain corporations? For example, as a citizen, is my data really better off with an ally, who can use it to exploit me instantly and personally? E.g. searches for medical information increasing insurance costs.
As regular nobodies, our data is probably distributed in the hands of both allies and non-allies. As long as there's such a strong push, both commercially and institutionally, for tracking and data mining, our only recourse is going offline.
No one wants our specific dental bills, mortgages or tax returns, but governments and corporations love mass statistics.
As soon as you're a "problem", e.g. because of a large insured event or ownership of property that someone wants to buy below the market, you're on someone's radar. At that point you no longer get the "regular nobody" defense.
I would probably choose the the opposite. My most likely state-actor adversary would be "my" government so I would prefer to not to make it easier for them to spy on me.
At one time, Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia all made GSM/UMTS cellular infrastructure. Are any of them still? Other than Huawei, what other manufacturers are there?
That's the point of the EU - defend interests of the union of relatively small countries against giants like China. NATO is only suited for military action, and who knows how long it's going to last anyway.
Also, probably the point of whatever the fuck Russia is doing with the EAEU (really should've picked a better name if they want it to stick).
The answer is simple: do not buy foreign made network technology. That is difficult but the intra European market (if there is trust there) should be big enough for e.g. Ericsson to keep up their Network tech group
Definitely the Chinese, simply because their foreign policy is much less violent than that of the US, and they don't try to forcefully export their political and economic system to other countries.
Because the fact that China has not engaged in non-local applications of violence, they must be better than the US? That seems to be an amazingly narrow standard, because by that measure any country which carries out atrocities on its own population is 'better' than the US. I understand, even if I may not agree, some individual's dislike of American foreign policy, but to equate America's actions in the last 20 years at a global level with a nation-state which is (according to press reports) imprisoning and potentially torturing and killing those of its own population who meet certain ethnic and demographic criteria seems absent any amount of perspective.
> Because the fact that China has not engaged in non-local applications of violence
Yet.
The PRC has been internationally relevant for a few decades. The US has been internationally relevant practically since its founding.
And for whatever reason, people don't think the PRC has continuity with pre-Mao China -- which has been internationally relevant since long before the US existed, and which doesn't have a very nice track record.
>Millennia later, during the Second World War, Mao Zedong seized on this historical vignette to announce that the Chinese Communist forces would not abide by any political, military, or moral limitations in its fight against the Japanese, stating: “We are not Duke Xiang of Song and have no use for his asinine ethics.”
>Opium profits funded many leading Boston institutions. Thomas Perkins and a brother helped found Massachusetts General Hospital, left, and Perkins donated one of his homes for a new school that ...
The US, I suppose.... The thing with back doors is that others might also find them so it is quite unsafe in any case. Also, the future is unpredictable so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one?
> so who says the US is going to continue to be more-or-less an ally and China is going to continue to not be one?
Geopolitics is much less unpredictable than "the future." Even the current administration is not so short-sighted to alienate the US to the point of having no powerful allies. If Europe is not considered an ally (it is, not "more or less," it 100% is), where would the US turn? Even if you take a scenario where Trump and Russia are allies, and the US positions itself closer to Russia, Russia's allies are anathema to US interests and ideals, and will be for the foreseeable future.
I just can't see any reality outside of borderline sci-fi where the US is not a close ally to just about every Western European country.
One could ask why the US and european countries are allies. I think it is because both are technologically advanced, both are rich, both are societies with human rights, both are democratic. (Relatively speaking, at least.) These things can change. Now that I name four factors it may sounds like a lot would need to change. But the first two as well as the second two are closely related. And at some point the former two are also related to the latter two. If China wants to keeps developing it will at some point need to improve its human rights situation as well.
Answer from one European individual - USA of course. It doesn't even require a split second of consideration for me.
The major and decisive difference between USA and China is not what they have done, are doing or might do. It is simply that the USA is a democracy and China is not.
In the USA, most of the people in positions of power /have to leave that position/ and /can't do whatever they want/ even when they have it.
That fact alone makes all the difference and is so substantial that it in my mind totally invalidates any whataboutism in this question and any other comparison between the USA and any dictatorship.
Even if a democracy happens to do more evil things in a period of time than a dictatorship, they are the better choice simply because they are a democracy and thus enables the people to both protest and also actually end the evil, through the legal system in the nation. (This does not mean that evil actions are OK when democracies are guilty of them of course, I'm not saying that.)
If and when the day comes that China has had at least two transfers of power to new leaders as a result of internationally observed and validated democratic elections by the people of China, then it would be something to think about. But not as of now.
Based on the premise that I have to choose a spying nation, of course, which I'd rather not do in real life! :)
As an American, I choose European / EU 5G equipment in all scenarios over Chinese 5G equipment. I don't care what the cost is.
Europe, broadly (other than Russia primarily), is aligned with the US in all the ways that matter and will continue to be. China is not in almost any regard. The sole things the US and China have in common is trade and that the next century will be defined by persistent US-China superpower tension all around the world and in most all respects.
For most Americans "I don't care what the cost is" immediately makes it an unrealistic scenario. And if history is any indication, for the vast majority of Americans choosing a privacy-focused solution is usually an accident. Price is the determining factor almost always.
If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to Chinese officials, and Europeans had to use one or the other, which would you choose?