This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Huawei article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
I think the following points could be moved into a subsection, titled "evidence of hacking and backdoors in Huawei equipment". I think the other material in this section are developments in relations between governments, Huawei, and other telecommunication operators.
On 19 July 2013, Michael Hayden, former head of the U.S. National Security Agency and director of Motorola Solutions, claimed that he has seen hard evidence of backdoors in Huawei's networking equipment and that the company engaged in espionage and shared intimate knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems with the Chinese government.
In 2018, an investigation by French newspaper Le Monde alleged that China had engaged in hacking the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia from 2012 to 2017. The building was built by Chinese contractors, including Huawei, and Huawei equipment has been linked to these hacks.
On April 30, 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, while also announcing that the issues were resolved at the time.
On 16 May 2019, Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant said Dutch intelligence agency AIVD was made aware of backdoors on Huawei equipment belonging to a dutch carrier and that it was determining whether or not those backdoors were used for spying by the Chinese government.
'Tis a pity that it isn't easier to do block quotes. Jamesray1 ( talk) 07:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Will it be fair to cite (and include an external link to) "Huawei Facts" from Huawei's PR team? It seems Huawei has been heavily defending themselves in recent years. Of course, if such claims from Huawei are indeed refutable, we may include those counter-counterclaims. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 16:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That will do. I'm not sure if I'm going to actively edit this and other related articles or not, but I'm sure other editors will take note.
Additional question for @ Dlthewave: Will it be okay to cite any of the articles in the lists curated by Huawei? They might be written in favour of Huawei, but at least they are from third party outlets.
JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Should Nortel be included here? There are at least a dozen WP:RS that explicitly link Huawei with the hacking of Nortel. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
By my reading of several sources, the hacking of Nortel was conducted by China itself and may have benefited Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese vendors. [1] [2] [3] [4] Brian Shields does not outright state that the attacks were performed by Huawei itself. Including the information Horse Eye Jack ( talk · contribs) proposes comes off as misblaming and fearmongering. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
, |date=
, and |archive-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
, |date=
, and |archive-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,if there are a lot of reliable sources that accuse Huawei then yes it should be included but all of them are based on Brain claim which in best case should be attributed if included.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Huawei has been accused of benefitting from Chinese state-sponsored hacking of Canadian telecommunications company Nortel. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In the years following the hack Huawei moved rapidly from a vendor of Nortel’s to their fiercest competitor without seeming to have invested in the R&D that would have made that possible. [7] [8] It has been alleged that Huawei stole Nortel’s core technologies and business strategies. [9] [10] It was reported in The Globe and Mail that in 2004 it became clear that Huawei was copying Nortel's telecom hardware, and even its instruction manuals. [11]
Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
"Notably, Nortel Network’s lead investigator into the theft identified Huawei as the perpetrator of the cyberattack on the firm, and suggested that the attack was an act of industrial espionage."-- SharabSalam ( talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That also should be mentioned. Also from the globe source I found this: "Cyber security experts have some doubts about the validity of Mr. Shields' claims, saying a hack of that magnitude is unlikely". You can see that Brian Shields claim is the center of this controversy in regard to Huawei. -- SharabSalam ( talk) 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This link is broken.
This source seems to be used liberally to cite various claims about Huawei and their alleged IP theft, espionage and hacking.
Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community.
The conclusive proof being discussed is an independent expert citing that the function "strcmp.c" is identical to Huawei's. strcmp.c is a basic C/C++ ISO standard and lends credit to Huawei's statement about the code originating from a third party. What is well-documented is Cisco's abuse of the IP system. The same argument could be made that Cisco copied Huawei's source code because they both use OpenDayLight.
I don't think there is any proof that Huawei has obtained a status of folklore within the routing and switching community within the sources cited. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
a false report submitted to the court would be a crime.
"Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community."I don't think verbatim copying the source is a reliable claim given that it's three steps removed from the primary source; that is it's an opinion on a small segment of a news show that's discussing the legal filings and statements from the companies. Most news sources I have read online discuss it in terms of allegations and claims by the companies which implies a lack of credibility, especially when the original source is Cisco's statements on a small part of the settlement that is under a confidentiality agreement between the two parties. While I doubt I can find a reliable source that will directly claim the "theory" that I suggested to contrast the section based on my experience in the tech industry. The details of the court case filing and statements lend credibility to it. The court filing, for example, was filed in the eastern district of Texas, specifically Marshall, Texas which is a well-documented forum for patent trolls, pools and organisations seeking advantageous litigation, juries and experts. Specialised blogs that focus on IP litigation like techrights offer much more nuanced and neutral perspectives on these court cases than main stream media. However, given the age of the story, a lot of material that commented on the story is no longer archived and thus most sources that can be found online are now retrospective opinions within the current political climate. I believe that if the section is to be as accurate as possible, it must use appropriate language that identifies where the claims within the articles are coming from: The legal filings and statements from Cisco and Huawei. I'll reiterate that when I discussed the trivial nature of STRCMP since it's my own OR, I wasn't suggesting adding it to the article but rather as an example of the questionable legal claims made by Cisco which would I don't believe would occur to even an informed reader had the section used different sources that directly references that these are claims and allegations by Cisco. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals. Many have said it for years, but 60 Minutes put it on worldwide television tonight for everyone to knowThe article is talking about 60 minutes news. I don't think this is being productive though; as you've said, the errors that I perceive seem to be be a result of wikipedia policy or my inability to express them. From my perspective, the Cisco v Huawei section is the most obviously flawed section on the page, and while I can't submit OR. I don't believe that what is claimed in the section is remotely in consensus with what main stream media reports nor what specialised services that comment on IP law and the tech industry say given that it implies concrete evidence of Huawei's theft of router trade secrets, design, code and manuals. It is certainly what public opinion believes, if that's what you classify as consensus. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Its been included on the page since way before you started posting, you should have reviewed it in full before ever posting on the talk pageIt was behind a paywall.
If you want to have a discussion over whether Cisco is more trustworthy than Huawei we can but thats an entirely separate argument.
The epoch times is not a reliable source, the article itself frequently uses quotes and makes claims that aren't found in the report being discussed. When it does attribute them; they are frequently misused to support a conjecture offered by the article itself. The report that the article discusses states
The G DATA security experts are certain that the manufacturers are not the perpetrators in the majority of cases. Renowned companies will not risk their reputation by distributing
The headline and content of the second citation also mirrors this opinion. But the quote from Huawei is sourced from the epochtimes which seems redundant. From the content of the second article and the G Data report being discussed it seems misleading to claim that the security issues can be attributed to Huawei but rather is the result of supply chain tampering. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the FCC investigation is demonstrating in regards to espionage, security concerns or within the scope of "consumer electronics" and I'm not even sure if Christopher A. Wray is a reliable source for commenting on Huawei's security concerns given his current active role in targeting Chinese immigrants and companies. It seems biased. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The article talks about the device sending data to Amazon and then leads the reader to conjecture about Facebook, Google, Huawei and the U.S government sharing information. I don't think the article is remotely reliable as the applications named in the report are basic phone services. I.E: HiCare Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"On 30 April 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, ...Vodaphone engineers had discovered backdoors in home internet routers in 2011..."
However that is infactual. Vodafone criticised Bloombergy and stated it wasn't a backdoor but the 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions.
"It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register, adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/
I feel that it is inappropriate to keep that paragragh in light of later and more updated articles with Vodafone's statements. As it is just inappropriate and misleading when bloomberg has given no valid evidence to back any of it whilst Vodafone reported it as factually incorrect and grossly misleading. 202.52.36.51 ( talk) 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Also should note after quick review, I noticed the page bias appears heavily one sided. I.e. Huawei has been criticised many times by the American gov for alleged spying, yet produced no proof and there has never been evidence publicly produced to back those serious criticisms. That is big news that is on the media constantly yet currently the page still lacks basic major info as below.
"Plummer and Huawei have long complained that when the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released a report in October 2012 condemning the use of Huawei gear in telephone and data networks, it failed to provide any evidence that the Chinese government had compromised the company's hardware. Adam Segal, a senior fellow for China Studies at the Center for Foreign Relations, makes the same point. And now we have evidence – Der Spiegel cites leaked NSA documents – that the U.S. government has compromised gear on a massive scale."
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/nsa-cisco-huawei-china/
Not a single mention or link to that specific info.
It seems the info that somewhat defends huawei against criticism is underreported.
Since the page is afterall about significant criticisms. I have included the Vodafone's public criticism of Bloomberg's wrongful criticism or smearing of Huawei. Also added in Poland's official statement to Huawei's staff espionage case as I feel that is only fair to document that in..If you have issues with that then reply here.
202.52.36.55 ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The neutrality of the main Huawei article is in dispute. It appears that a major cause of this is that criticisms and controversies that should have been placed in this article and only summarized in the main article did not happen in that order. Items were placed in the main article as either duplicate information contained in this article or as items that are not even covered in this article. To move forward with fixing the neutrality of the main Huawei article, migrating information from that article to this article and then cleaning up the main article so that it only has summaries of what is in this article is proposed. For some items in the main article, facts can be moved to this article and for other items passages need to be combined. The goal is that the main article only contains brief summaries of all of the information contained in this article. Editors are asked to assist in this goal. Until this is done, a cleanup template has been posted at the top of this article. -- Ian Korman ( talk) 14:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
-- Ian Korman ( talk) 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The content looks sourced to me, the only statements which may have merit to remove are the sentences cited to the Medium articles which is a blog hosting service. Dylsss( talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks ok to me for sources. I agree with the issue with Medium. SuperHeight ( talk) 00:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The whole page should be reorganized with TWO main headings:
Any dirty tactics company can defame another company with public allegations to remove them from the competition. Eva Kaln ( talk) 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The current text "committed industrial espionage in United States, and Huawei was ordered to pay $4.8 million in damages"
alters the meaning of the sources by cherry-picking words and connecting two different events. According to this source,
[4] "The jury said T-Mobile should be awarded $4.8 million in damages because of this breach of contract. But the jury also decided that Huawei’s misappropriation was not “willful and malicious,” and it did not award any damages from the trade-secret claim"
. Another source
[5] says "The jury found that T-Mobile suffered no losses due to the misappropriation of Tappy and declined to award punitive damages"
. The only damage was that Huawei "broke a handset agreement. For this action, the jury awarded T-Mobile $4.8 million"
. Nor does this source
[6] say anything about the jury agreeing with T-Mobile on "espionage".
CurryCity (
talk) 08:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere is it mentionned that despite intensive research from the American imtelligence (and allies), not a single backdoor has ever been found. I think this is worth mentioning and at the same time questioning the reason for Huawei's ban, don't you thing so!? I do not consider an article based on rumors (and fake assumptions) very objective. 77.56.51.110 ( talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Huawei article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
I think the following points could be moved into a subsection, titled "evidence of hacking and backdoors in Huawei equipment". I think the other material in this section are developments in relations between governments, Huawei, and other telecommunication operators.
On 19 July 2013, Michael Hayden, former head of the U.S. National Security Agency and director of Motorola Solutions, claimed that he has seen hard evidence of backdoors in Huawei's networking equipment and that the company engaged in espionage and shared intimate knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems with the Chinese government.
In 2018, an investigation by French newspaper Le Monde alleged that China had engaged in hacking the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia from 2012 to 2017. The building was built by Chinese contractors, including Huawei, and Huawei equipment has been linked to these hacks.
On April 30, 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, while also announcing that the issues were resolved at the time.
On 16 May 2019, Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant said Dutch intelligence agency AIVD was made aware of backdoors on Huawei equipment belonging to a dutch carrier and that it was determining whether or not those backdoors were used for spying by the Chinese government.
'Tis a pity that it isn't easier to do block quotes. Jamesray1 ( talk) 07:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Will it be fair to cite (and include an external link to) "Huawei Facts" from Huawei's PR team? It seems Huawei has been heavily defending themselves in recent years. Of course, if such claims from Huawei are indeed refutable, we may include those counter-counterclaims. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 16:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That will do. I'm not sure if I'm going to actively edit this and other related articles or not, but I'm sure other editors will take note.
Additional question for @ Dlthewave: Will it be okay to cite any of the articles in the lists curated by Huawei? They might be written in favour of Huawei, but at least they are from third party outlets.
JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Should Nortel be included here? There are at least a dozen WP:RS that explicitly link Huawei with the hacking of Nortel. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
By my reading of several sources, the hacking of Nortel was conducted by China itself and may have benefited Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese vendors. [1] [2] [3] [4] Brian Shields does not outright state that the attacks were performed by Huawei itself. Including the information Horse Eye Jack ( talk · contribs) proposes comes off as misblaming and fearmongering. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
, |date=
, and |archive-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help); Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
, |date=
, and |archive-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,if there are a lot of reliable sources that accuse Huawei then yes it should be included but all of them are based on Brain claim which in best case should be attributed if included.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Huawei has been accused of benefitting from Chinese state-sponsored hacking of Canadian telecommunications company Nortel. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In the years following the hack Huawei moved rapidly from a vendor of Nortel’s to their fiercest competitor without seeming to have invested in the R&D that would have made that possible. [7] [8] It has been alleged that Huawei stole Nortel’s core technologies and business strategies. [9] [10] It was reported in The Globe and Mail that in 2004 it became clear that Huawei was copying Nortel's telecom hardware, and even its instruction manuals. [11]
Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
"Notably, Nortel Network’s lead investigator into the theft identified Huawei as the perpetrator of the cyberattack on the firm, and suggested that the attack was an act of industrial espionage."-- SharabSalam ( talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That also should be mentioned. Also from the globe source I found this: "Cyber security experts have some doubts about the validity of Mr. Shields' claims, saying a hack of that magnitude is unlikely". You can see that Brian Shields claim is the center of this controversy in regard to Huawei. -- SharabSalam ( talk) 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This link is broken.
This source seems to be used liberally to cite various claims about Huawei and their alleged IP theft, espionage and hacking.
Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community.
The conclusive proof being discussed is an independent expert citing that the function "strcmp.c" is identical to Huawei's. strcmp.c is a basic C/C++ ISO standard and lends credit to Huawei's statement about the code originating from a third party. What is well-documented is Cisco's abuse of the IP system. The same argument could be made that Cisco copied Huawei's source code because they both use OpenDayLight.
I don't think there is any proof that Huawei has obtained a status of folklore within the routing and switching community within the sources cited. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
a false report submitted to the court would be a crime.
"Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community."I don't think verbatim copying the source is a reliable claim given that it's three steps removed from the primary source; that is it's an opinion on a small segment of a news show that's discussing the legal filings and statements from the companies. Most news sources I have read online discuss it in terms of allegations and claims by the companies which implies a lack of credibility, especially when the original source is Cisco's statements on a small part of the settlement that is under a confidentiality agreement between the two parties. While I doubt I can find a reliable source that will directly claim the "theory" that I suggested to contrast the section based on my experience in the tech industry. The details of the court case filing and statements lend credibility to it. The court filing, for example, was filed in the eastern district of Texas, specifically Marshall, Texas which is a well-documented forum for patent trolls, pools and organisations seeking advantageous litigation, juries and experts. Specialised blogs that focus on IP litigation like techrights offer much more nuanced and neutral perspectives on these court cases than main stream media. However, given the age of the story, a lot of material that commented on the story is no longer archived and thus most sources that can be found online are now retrospective opinions within the current political climate. I believe that if the section is to be as accurate as possible, it must use appropriate language that identifies where the claims within the articles are coming from: The legal filings and statements from Cisco and Huawei. I'll reiterate that when I discussed the trivial nature of STRCMP since it's my own OR, I wasn't suggesting adding it to the article but rather as an example of the questionable legal claims made by Cisco which would I don't believe would occur to even an informed reader had the section used different sources that directly references that these are claims and allegations by Cisco. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals. Many have said it for years, but 60 Minutes put it on worldwide television tonight for everyone to knowThe article is talking about 60 minutes news. I don't think this is being productive though; as you've said, the errors that I perceive seem to be be a result of wikipedia policy or my inability to express them. From my perspective, the Cisco v Huawei section is the most obviously flawed section on the page, and while I can't submit OR. I don't believe that what is claimed in the section is remotely in consensus with what main stream media reports nor what specialised services that comment on IP law and the tech industry say given that it implies concrete evidence of Huawei's theft of router trade secrets, design, code and manuals. It is certainly what public opinion believes, if that's what you classify as consensus. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Its been included on the page since way before you started posting, you should have reviewed it in full before ever posting on the talk pageIt was behind a paywall.
If you want to have a discussion over whether Cisco is more trustworthy than Huawei we can but thats an entirely separate argument.
The epoch times is not a reliable source, the article itself frequently uses quotes and makes claims that aren't found in the report being discussed. When it does attribute them; they are frequently misused to support a conjecture offered by the article itself. The report that the article discusses states
The G DATA security experts are certain that the manufacturers are not the perpetrators in the majority of cases. Renowned companies will not risk their reputation by distributing
The headline and content of the second citation also mirrors this opinion. But the quote from Huawei is sourced from the epochtimes which seems redundant. From the content of the second article and the G Data report being discussed it seems misleading to claim that the security issues can be attributed to Huawei but rather is the result of supply chain tampering. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the FCC investigation is demonstrating in regards to espionage, security concerns or within the scope of "consumer electronics" and I'm not even sure if Christopher A. Wray is a reliable source for commenting on Huawei's security concerns given his current active role in targeting Chinese immigrants and companies. It seems biased. Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The article talks about the device sending data to Amazon and then leads the reader to conjecture about Facebook, Google, Huawei and the U.S government sharing information. I don't think the article is remotely reliable as the applications named in the report are basic phone services. I.E: HiCare Ebullient Prism ( talk) 11:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"On 30 April 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, ...Vodaphone engineers had discovered backdoors in home internet routers in 2011..."
However that is infactual. Vodafone criticised Bloombergy and stated it wasn't a backdoor but the 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions.
"It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register, adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/
I feel that it is inappropriate to keep that paragragh in light of later and more updated articles with Vodafone's statements. As it is just inappropriate and misleading when bloomberg has given no valid evidence to back any of it whilst Vodafone reported it as factually incorrect and grossly misleading. 202.52.36.51 ( talk) 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Also should note after quick review, I noticed the page bias appears heavily one sided. I.e. Huawei has been criticised many times by the American gov for alleged spying, yet produced no proof and there has never been evidence publicly produced to back those serious criticisms. That is big news that is on the media constantly yet currently the page still lacks basic major info as below.
"Plummer and Huawei have long complained that when the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released a report in October 2012 condemning the use of Huawei gear in telephone and data networks, it failed to provide any evidence that the Chinese government had compromised the company's hardware. Adam Segal, a senior fellow for China Studies at the Center for Foreign Relations, makes the same point. And now we have evidence – Der Spiegel cites leaked NSA documents – that the U.S. government has compromised gear on a massive scale."
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/nsa-cisco-huawei-china/
Not a single mention or link to that specific info.
It seems the info that somewhat defends huawei against criticism is underreported.
Since the page is afterall about significant criticisms. I have included the Vodafone's public criticism of Bloomberg's wrongful criticism or smearing of Huawei. Also added in Poland's official statement to Huawei's staff espionage case as I feel that is only fair to document that in..If you have issues with that then reply here.
202.52.36.55 ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The neutrality of the main Huawei article is in dispute. It appears that a major cause of this is that criticisms and controversies that should have been placed in this article and only summarized in the main article did not happen in that order. Items were placed in the main article as either duplicate information contained in this article or as items that are not even covered in this article. To move forward with fixing the neutrality of the main Huawei article, migrating information from that article to this article and then cleaning up the main article so that it only has summaries of what is in this article is proposed. For some items in the main article, facts can be moved to this article and for other items passages need to be combined. The goal is that the main article only contains brief summaries of all of the information contained in this article. Editors are asked to assist in this goal. Until this is done, a cleanup template has been posted at the top of this article. -- Ian Korman ( talk) 14:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
-- Ian Korman ( talk) 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The content looks sourced to me, the only statements which may have merit to remove are the sentences cited to the Medium articles which is a blog hosting service. Dylsss( talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks ok to me for sources. I agree with the issue with Medium. SuperHeight ( talk) 00:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The whole page should be reorganized with TWO main headings:
Any dirty tactics company can defame another company with public allegations to remove them from the competition. Eva Kaln ( talk) 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The current text "committed industrial espionage in United States, and Huawei was ordered to pay $4.8 million in damages"
alters the meaning of the sources by cherry-picking words and connecting two different events. According to this source,
[4] "The jury said T-Mobile should be awarded $4.8 million in damages because of this breach of contract. But the jury also decided that Huawei’s misappropriation was not “willful and malicious,” and it did not award any damages from the trade-secret claim"
. Another source
[5] says "The jury found that T-Mobile suffered no losses due to the misappropriation of Tappy and declined to award punitive damages"
. The only damage was that Huawei "broke a handset agreement. For this action, the jury awarded T-Mobile $4.8 million"
. Nor does this source
[6] say anything about the jury agreeing with T-Mobile on "espionage".
CurryCity (
talk) 08:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere is it mentionned that despite intensive research from the American imtelligence (and allies), not a single backdoor has ever been found. I think this is worth mentioning and at the same time questioning the reason for Huawei's ban, don't you thing so!? I do not consider an article based on rumors (and fake assumptions) very objective. 77.56.51.110 ( talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)