HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Huawei's Global Head Of Cyber Security Wants The Government 'To Have As Much Data As Possible'

from the thinking-it-through dept

In Der Spiegel's recent revelations about the far-reaching nature of the NSA's spykit, it mentions several US companies, Samsung from South Korea, and one from China -- Huawei. Like the others, Huawei denied any knowledge of the modifications to its products that Der Spiegel claims are used by the NSA to break into systems. This isn't the first time that the finger has been pointed at Huawei. Some years back, Huawei was accused of facilitating spying for the Chinese government, but after an 18-month investigation, no evidence was found of this. That fact allowed John Suffolk, Global Head of Cyber Security for Huawei and the former UK Government CIO, to enjoy the irony of Snowden's leaks about backdoors in US products:

Huawei were investigated by the American Congress and we were given a "clean bill of health". Well as journalists and analysts said "lots of ifs buts and maybe's but no evidence of wrongdoing", or my favourite "a report for vegetarians, no meat", so in my definition no evidence of wrongdoing is a clean bill of health. Based on this lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, the American Congress said that Huawei should not be allowed into America, so based on all of these revelations [from Snowden], and there will be many more on America, should all other Governments ban American technology companies, especially Cisco and Juniper given their position in critical infrastructures?
Perhaps triggered by the latest Der Spiegel article that mentions Huawei in the context of spying, Suffolk has another blog post on the subject. Discussing the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) that Der Spiegel revealed, he writes:
Questioning the morality or legality of TAO misses the point.
Since when did people operate in a moral vacuum? I seem to recall the "just following orders" excuse was rejected definitively some years ago. The morality and legality of TAO is precisely the point. Suffolk then goes on to explain:
In relation to my views I am quite clear I want my Government to have as much data as possible. I want them to have the tools, techniques and resources to mine this data to stop a terrible event from occurring -- stopping one event is good enough for me. The alternative is we have to sift through the body parts once an event has occurred.
Leaving aside both the false dichotomy (either total surveillance or terrorist carnage) and the implicit emotional blackmail (if you don't agree that the government should spy on everyone, any deaths will be on your head), it would seem that Suffolk hasn't thought this through.

"I want my Government to have as much data as possible," he writes. Really? So he's happy for CCTV cameras to be installed in every room in every building in the land -- because that's certainly extremely useful data for the government. It is quite likely that such CCTV footage, suitably analyzed using all those tools that Suffolk wants the government to have at its disposal, would lead to the occasional careless or incompetent terrorist being caught before any harm could be caused. And remember, even if this 24x7 CCTV surveillance of everyone in the country only stops "one event", that's still a good enough justification according to him.

I can't really believe Suffolk is advocating such an extreme approach, but it's where his logic leads. That's why there must be some proportionality in the government's efforts to keep us safe, and a weighing of what we would lose in terms of privacy and personal freedom if we allowed it to "have as much data as possible". If there isn't either, Suffolk's naïve acquiescence in maximalist surveillance opens the door to a deep and possibly long-lasting oppression far worse than extremely rare terrorist attacks whose impact pales into insignificance compared to dozens of everyday risks we accept without a moment's thought.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Gwiz (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 9:25am

    Re: Answer to question: WHENEVER POSSIBLE, The Rich and Gov't are totally amoral at best, with anti-moral the goal!

    "I made it, therefore I own it, you do not" is fundamental morality, can not be reduced nor denied.

    That is how physical property and intellectual property works up to a point, but you haven't carried that thought out far enough to discern the difference between the two.

    For physical property it's: "I made it, therefore I own it, you do not. I have now sold it to you, therefore YOU own it and I do not."

    That is completely different than how copyright works, which is: "I made it, therefore I own it. I have now sold it to you, but I STILL own it and you don't."

    Are you really advocating for abolishing copyright? Because every time you conflate physical property with intellectual property in this manner, it seems like you are wanting intellectual property to be just like physical property, which would require the abolishment of copyright laws.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.