美國為什麼怕華為？_風聞

文：岡特·舒赫（戰略管理諮詢公司Debrouillage創始人）

譯：楊瑞賡

美國非常清楚自己為什麼害怕華為，因為各種通過技術刺探情報的事他們統統做過。我們所面臨的變化，不是誰不想再開展間諜工作，而是掌握技術優勢的人變了。

美國的虛偽從它的措辭可見一斑，這種清晰劃分敵我的世界觀還真是“令人欣慰”。

如果“我們美國”使用間諜手段，我們稱之為“情報”或“偵察”，“保護國家利益和國家安全”的做法當然都是“正當合理”的。

如果“他們中國”這樣做，我們稱之為“間諜”、“網絡攻擊”、“滲透”、“犯罪”、“侵略”，當然這是“不道德的非法行為”等等。

既然華為創始人任正非曾是一名解放軍軍人，那麼這便是其從事間諜活動的準證據，雖然在美國，擁有軍隊背景也同樣大大有助於一個人從事社會和政治活動。

讓我們把話説開了吧，任何理性思考的人都知道，世界各個國家和各國領導人都在互相刺探情報，不僅出於軍事和政治目的，也是為了經濟利益。

孫子在兵法中高度強調間諜的重要性；東羅馬帝國派間諜假扮成僧侶到中國竊取蠶桑絲綢技術的秘密；我的祖國德國19世紀時派工程師去英國竊取鍊鋼技術……諸如此類的事情數不勝數。

如今，華為已經被全世界各大媒體潑上了“間諜”的髒水。儘管許多人還是第一次聽到華為這個名字，卻已經把它與“間諜”這個詞牢牢聯繫在一起。

為什麼美國要花這麼大力氣來打擊一家公司？

從美國1月29日對華為的刑事起訴來看，其所指控的行為最早可以追溯到2007年。為什麼要等這麼久？也許在那個時候，美國是歡迎低價產品的，並不將華為視作技術威脅。

現在，美國擔心中國未來會像美國對待別國那樣對待美國：幾十年來，美國一直在監視監聽盟友和敵人，從而獲取政治、軍事和經濟利益。

如果你以“華為”與“商業間諜”進行檢索，就會發現除了那種胡亂預測未來的文章外，多數是美國國家安全局滲透華為設備的案例。

在“狙擊巨人（shotgiant）”行動中，美國國家安全局侵入了華為總部服務器，不僅攔截電子郵件，還竊取了源代碼——對任何科技公司而言，源代碼都是王冠上的寶石。

2014年，華為發言人比爾·普盧默評論道：“這件事如果屬實，那麼具有諷刺意味的是，他們對我們所做的事，恰恰是他們一直指控中國政府通過華為所做的事。”

現在，針對孟晚舟和華為的訴狀都把華為內部郵件作為證據，美國是如何獲取華為內部電子郵件的？這是一種巧合嗎？

唯一有“實錘”指控也引用了被截獲的電子郵件。

一名華為僱員在2017年被判有罪，因為他竊取了德國電信的美國子公司T-Mobile開發的名為“Tappy”的機器人手臂的相關機密。這款產品可以可以自動點擊智能手機屏幕。

儘管它牽涉到的是4G設備的屏幕，而不是5G網絡組件，可這件事仍然作為“各種商業間諜活動”的證據被大書特書。不過，作為“受害者”的德國電信卻仍然在繼續採購華為的手機和網絡。

你若以為美國只通過龐大的監控網絡監聽東歐敵對國家，從不竊聽德國政治或商業機密，那未免也太天真了。位於巴伐利亞州巴特艾布靈的監聽中心成立於1947年，一直受美國國家安全局領導，直到本世紀初因為監聽德國的行動激起公憤才將管理權逐漸移交給德國聯邦情報局。美國對德國採取的手段包括監聽移動和固定電話，監控互聯網信息，以及攔截衞星傳播信號。

作為全球監控網絡“梯隊系統”的一部分，巴特艾布靈監聽中心是除英國和美國本土之外最大的監聽站。

斯諾登曝光的文件揭示了美國是如何在互聯網時代開展監控行動的。

《紐約時報》寫道：“斯諾登文件還表明，美國國家安全局有另一個目標：更好地吃透華為的技術，尋找潛在的後門。”這樣一來，當華為向美國的敵人出售設備時，美國國家安全局便能夠針對這些國家的計算機和電話網絡進行監控，並在必要時發起網絡攻擊行動。”

美國政府為了證明它想要表達的政治觀點，會定期公佈它靠網絡入侵手段獲取的信息。人們往往只注意到信息本身多麼驚悚，而忽視了美國獲取消息的方式。

以2019年2月8日的《紐約時報》為例：

“在2017年的一次談話中，沙特王儲穆罕默德·本·薩勒曼告訴一名高級助手，如果賈馬爾·卡舒吉不返回沙特王國，且不停止對沙特政府的批評，他將賞對方‘一顆子彈’。卡舒吉已於去年10月被殺……”

為了提高可信度，消息提供者表示：

“……根據美國情報機構截獲的談話，這是迄今為止最詳細的證據，表明在沙特特工將卡舒吉勒死於沙特駐伊斯坦布爾領館並用骨鋸將其肢解之前，沙特王儲就早就考慮殺死卡舒吉了。”

如果我們能讓受害者被骨鋸肢解的慘狀暫時離開我們的腦海，便會發現美國情報機構攔截了一個主權國家元首的電話，而且這個國家居然還是美國的盟友。

我們當然可以合理地假設，華為的技術跟諾基亞或愛立信一樣，都存在被濫用的可能，而且某些情況下它們也確實遭到了濫用。

例如，2013年有新聞曝光美國國家安全局和英國政府通信總部擁有蘋果、黑莓和安卓手機用户數據的訪問權，可以讀取智能手機的幾乎所有信息，包括短信、位置、電子郵件和筆記。

唯一的區別是，中國的利益相關方能更多接觸到中國技術公司的信息，而西方的利益相關方能更多接觸到西方技術公司的信息，但這只是相對的，不是絕對的。

當蘋果公司引入強加密技術時，2015年和2016年法律訴訟接踵而至，美國政府根據1789年的《所有令狀法案(All Writs Act)》，在至少12項法院命令中要求獲取訪問權限。在某些情況下政府給出的理由是應對恐怖襲擊，另一些理由則是諸如信用卡欺詐等小事。在所有情況下，美國政府都要求蘋果公司從鎖定的iPhone中提取聯繫人、照片以及通話等數據。

現在想象一下，美國政府想向華為或中興施壓，要求它們編寫代碼來破解它們提供給客户的加密程序。

如果因為中國法律要求私企在某些情況下與情報和執法部門合作，就將華為排除在美國市場之外的話，那麼根據《所有令狀法案》，思科也應被排除在美國之外。

那麼，美國禁止公務員使用華為產品和服務，以及強烈“鼓勵”網絡運營商不再售賣華為設備（比如強迫AT&T和Verizon在推出華為新款手機前夕突然放棄與華為合作），真的是怕華為通過手機監控美國公民嗎？

看起來，這項措施更像是為了方便美國當局在必要時破解其國內流通的各種手機。

我是個現實主義者，非常厭惡任何形式的極端主義，無論是宗教的、政治的還是意識形態的。我可以接受這樣一種現實，即雙方都不是完全誠實的，都致力於維護己方利益，當然表面上還是會裝裝樣子。

但如果有人決定要大舉佔領道德制高點，他本身需要經得起道德檢驗。

讓我們剝開美國冠冕堂皇的道德説辭，那不過是為了愚弄那些容易哄騙的民眾和盟友。

還記得震網病毒（Stuxnet）嗎?

這是一種於2010年被發現的計算機蠕蟲病毒。它的攻擊目標是廣泛應用於工業過程控制的監控和數據採集系統（SCADA）和可編程邏輯控制器（PLC）。震網病毒被認為是美國和以色列伊朗核計劃而聯合研製的網絡武器。

震網病毒破壞了伊朗的PLC，導致濃縮鈾離心機異常加速自行毀壞。

此次華為事件可以説是當年卡巴斯基爭議的翻本。俄羅斯軟件製造商卡巴斯基的產品被認為是世界最好的殺毒軟件之一。

自2015年以來，西方媒體指控卡巴斯基與俄羅斯政府關係密切，最後美國政府也做此表態。2017年，特朗普簽署法案，禁止美國政府和公共機構的計算機使用卡巴斯基軟件。

從2010年左右開始，卡巴斯基軟件暴露了一系列由政府資助的網絡間諜和破壞活動。據《連線》雜誌報道，“其中許多行動似乎是由美國及其盟友英國、以色列等國發起的。卡巴斯基尤其以揭露震網病毒而聞名。”

很難相信這一系列事件都是巧合。

因此，如果美國政府夠坦誠的話，它應該這樣説：“但我們就是看不得華為成功，儘管它的成功理所應當，因為它使我們的情報和反情報工作變得更困難。因此為了掐斷它的渠道，公平也好不公平也罷，我們各種手段都要用。”

America knows so well why it is afraid of Huawei because they themselves have done it all before. What’s changing is not the universal willingness to spy, but who has what technological edge. 

Hypocrisy starts at the level of language, but goes far deeper. 

A simple black and white world view is comforting. 

In all global media, you find this bias.  

If “we” use means of espionage, we call it “intelligence” or “reconnaissance”, and it is of cause all “legitimate” to “protect national interests and national security”, and “legitimate”. 

If “they” do it, we call it “spying”, “cyber attacks”, “infiltration”, “criminal”, “aggression” and it’s of course “illegal in immoral” etc. 

​

If the founder of Huawei was once in the PLA, that is presented as quasi proof for spying, whereas a military pedigree in the US is also tremendously helpful for a civil or political career. 

Let’s be fully honest: 

Any rationally thinking person knows that countries and rulers around the world have always spied on each other, not only for military and politics, but also for economic gain.  

Sun Tzu calls spies “more important than water”. 

The East-Roman Empire sent spies disguised as monks to China to steal the secret of making silk. 

We Germans sent engineers to UK in the 19th century to steal their knowhow in steel making.

The list can be expanded endlessly. 

Currently, Huawei is dragged into the mud in media around the world. Many citizens who heard the name Huawei for the first time ever, already saved it right next to “spying” in their brains. 

Why is the US fighting this company so hard? 

The charges unveiled on 29.1.2019 date all the way back to 2007. Why wait so long? Maybe at the time, the cheap products were welcome, but not perceived as technologically threatening.

Now the US is afraid that China could do to it, what that same USA has been doing for decades: Listen in to friends and foes, for political, military and economic benefit. 

If you research Huawei + industrial espionage, besides wild speculations of what could maybe happen in the future, you will mainly find the case of the American NSA infiltrating Huawei equipment. 

The National Security Agency, in operation “Shotgiant”, hacked Huawei’s headquarters and not only intercepted emails, but also gained access to the company’s source code, the crown jewels of any tech company. 

In 2014, Huawei spokesperson Bill Plummer commented: 

“If it is true, the irony is that exactly what they are doing to us is what they have always charged that the Chinese are doing through us”

Is it coincidence that now, the indictments against MengWanzhou and Huawei refer company-internal e-mails as proof? How did the US gain access to internal e-mails?   

The only real accusation which is dug up, dates from 2013, also citing intercepted e-mails: A Huawei employee was later found guilty in 2017 to have stolen a robotic arm called “Tappy”, developed by Deutsche Telekom’s American daughter company, T-Mobile USA, to tap smart phone screens automatically. 

So this was about the screen of 4G devices, not 5G network components. 

However, it is conveniently used as proof of “all those industrial espionage allegations”, while it did not keep the victim Deutsche Telekom from buying Huawei phones and networks. 

It is foolish to believe that the US only listened to Eastern European enemies with their enormous surveillance centers as the one in Bad Aibling in Germany, and never to German political or trade secrets. Created 1947, it was run by the NSA until the early 2000s, when operations were gradually transferred to German BND due to public outrage over U.S. surveillance operations in Germany. The surveillance included mobile and fixed line telephony and internet traffic, in particular by intercepting communication with satellites.

As part of the global surveillance network ECHELON, Bad Aibling is the largest listening post outside Britain and the USA.

The Snowden files revealed how it is done in the age of Internet.

The New York Times wrote: “The Snowden documents also show that the N.S.A. had another goal: to better understand Huawei’s technology and look for potential back doors. This way, when the company sold equipment to American adversaries, the N.S.A. would be able to target those nations’ computer and telephone networks to conduct surveillance and, if necessary, offensive cyberoperations.” 

In regular intervals, the American Government publishes results of such intrusions to prove political points they want to make. What is usually lost over the often outrageous news is how it was obtained.

Take this current example from the New York Times February 8, 2019:

“Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia told a top aide in a conversation in 2017 that he would use “a bullet” on Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist killed in October, if Mr. Khashoggi did not return to the kingdom and end his criticism of the Saudi government…”

The source, lending credibility: “… according to … the conversation, intercepted by American intelligence agencies, is the most detailed evidence to date that the crown prince considered killing Mr. Khashoggi long before a team of Saudi operatives strangled him inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and dismembered his body using a bone saw.”.

If we can detach our mind for a moment of the image of the victim dismembered by bone saw, we see: American intelligence agencies intercepted phone calls made by the head of state of a sovereign nation, which is even a US ally. 

It is safe to assume that Huawei technology can also be abused in such a way, as can Nokia’s or Ericcson’s, and that they all are at some point. 

E.g. it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had access to the user data in iPhones, BlackBerry, and Android phones and could read almost all smartphone information, including SMS, location, emails, and notes.

The difference only being, that Chinese interested parties have a somewhat better access to Chinese tech, and Western interested parties to Western tech, but that is only relative, not absolute.

When Apple introduced strong phone encryption, law suits ensued in 2015 and 2016 where the government demanded access in at least 12 court orders under the All Writs Act of 1789. Some of these were in the context of terrorist attacks, while others concerned rather minor issues like credit card fraud.  In all cases, Apple was asked to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones. 

Now imagine, the US government wanted to pressure Huawei or ZTE to write code to break the encryption they offered their own customers.

If a national law requiring private companies to cooperate with intelligence and law enforcement in certain cases was grounds to exclude Huawei, then Cisco would have to be excluded outside US based on the All Writs Act.  

So is really Huawei’s spying on US citizens through their phones the reason to ban them from Government use and strongly “encourage” network carriers to remove them from their offer, as AT&T and Verizon were forced to do immediately before launching new Huawei phones nationwide? 

It seems this measure was rather meant to facilitate US authorities the cracking of phones in national circulation if need be.

I am a realist and profoundly dislike extremism of any kind, be it religious, political, ideological etc. I can live with the fact that neither side is perfectly honest and thriving for its own advantage, and even that they embellish the surface.  

But if somebody decides to aggressively claim the moral high ground, he needs to stand the test of his own morals. 

So let’s peel away some moralizing US language which is only there to fool a gullible population and gullible allies. 

Do you remember Stuxnet? 

This was a computer worm, first uncovered in 2010. Stuxnet targets “Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition” SCADA systems and Programmable Logic Controllers PLCs, extensively used in industrial process plants. Stuxnet  is believed to be a jointly built American/Israeli cyber weapon to delay the Iranian nuclear program. 

Stuxnet compromised Iranian PLCs, causing the fast-spinning centrifuges to enrich uranium to tear themselves apart. 

A real blue print for the Huawei affair is the controversy around Russian anti-virus softwarmaker Kaspersky, known worldwide as one of the best. 

Since 2015 Kaspersky was alleged to have close ties to the Russian government by Western media, and finally the US government itself. In 2017 President Trump signed legislation to ban Kaspersky software on US government computers and other US institutions.

Beginning around 2010, Kaspersky software had exposed a series of government-sponsored cyber-espionage and sabotage efforts. According to Wired, “many of them [were] seemingly launched by the US and its UK and Israeli allies. Kaspersky is especially well-known for its work uncovering Stuxnet.” 

Not easy to believe in coincidence. 

So the honest communication would read: “We hate to see the well deserved success of Huawei, as it makes our intelligence and counter-intelligence work more difficult. Thus we try fair and unfair means to curb its distribution”. 

(End)