Huawei Hisilicon chip set

[Paul Schmehl]

I noticed that this chip set is not discussed in your dash cam processor article. This is the one used in the DDpai M6+. Is that because it's a new chipset? Or not commonly used in dash cams?

 

[jokiin]

it's only new to market, you'll see more cameras based on this chipset over the coming months

 

[Paul Schmehl]

Thanks.

 

[M Basta]

There are a ton of accusations by the US goverment that Huawei is basically an arm of the Chinese Military with nefarious intentions. CNET did a massive piece on them a few years ago, as did 60 minutes (below is just a portion of their report).

I personally wouldn't buy anything with their products (i.e. support whatever they're doing) based on what I've read. That includes products like DDPai, and other electronics that I know contain their equipment.

 

[Paul Schmehl]

So basically the politicians are afraid that Huawei might do the same thing the NSA is doing already. They point to the leader of Huawei as a former military man, but how many US companies could you say the same thing about? How many US companies have a very close relationship with the US government? The point is, the accusations that are made are fear based and no different from what could be complained of with many US firms.

Their chip seems to produce what I would consider outstanding video, so that's what I care about.

 

[jokiin]

So basically the politicians are afraid that Huawei might do the same thing the NSA is doing already.

maybe they're worried the NSA will lose access

a lot of tin foil hat wearing and not a lot of substance in any of those reports

 

[M Basta]

So basically the politicians are afraid that Huawei might do the same thing the NSA is doing already. They point to the leader of Huawei as a former military man, but how many US companies could you say the same thing about? How many US companies have a very close relationship with the US government? The point is, the accusations that are made are fear based and no different from what could be complained of with many US firms.

Their chip seems to produce what I would consider outstanding video, so that's what I care about.

Well, better the NSA than some foreign communist government who can shut down entire sectors of a country with the flip of a switch. I don't know about you but I trust my government. Also, it's not just "military man". It's a military man who, with a mere few thousand dollars built a multi-billion dollar telecom giant with an aggressive history of theft (see Cisco) in a few short years. His super-secretive nature and Huawei's desire to grant no interviews probably doesn't help their case. The obvious implication is that the Chinese Miliary actually owns, funds and directs the company. I know of no US private company with those kinds of parallels.

Also, they don't seem to have a problem with the other Chinese telecom or the French or the Swedes.

 

[M Basta]

maybe they're worried the NSA will lose access

a lot of tin foil hat wearing and not a lot of substance in any of those reports

I think they're worried the USA is vulnerable at the hands of a rising military and economic power. As for "not a lot of substance", neither you nor I know what "substance" the US intelligence has on the matter. Remember, this isn't the media making these accusations. They're just reporting what the US government is saying.

I'd assume even what's contained in this public report is but a mere fraction of whatever evidence they have to make the decision and claims they're making: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites...s/huawei-zte investigative report (final).pdf

 

[Paul Schmehl]

Well, better the NSA than some foreign communist government who can shut down entire sectors of a country with the flip of a switch. I don't know about you but I trust my government.

I don't trust our government at all. And your claim rests on Huawei having a back door into all the systems they sell. That's a claim that had better be proven before I'd believe it. The same claim could be made of Cisco by every other country in the world , if we don't insist on evidence. I worked in computer security for 20 years. Manufacturers' back doors are not nearly as common as people think, and those that do exist are usually quite well known in the industry.

Also, it's not just "military man". It's a military man who, with a mere few thousand dollars built a multi-billion telecom giant with an aggressive history of theft (see Cisco) in a few short years. His super-secretive nature and Huawei's desire to grant to no interviews probably doesn't help their case.

Ross Perot was a Navy officer and started EDS with $1000. Howard Hughes was so secretive no one saw him for years. These are not arguments for not purchasing their products. The only difference between "them" and "us" is that "they" are not "us". Other than that, the behaviors are quite similar.

They don't seem to have a problem with the other Chinese telecom or the French or the Swedes.

Which could mean almost anything. It could mean that Huawei doesn't contribute to politicians' campaigns, and so they get "special attention" from the government. (What our politicians do is called extortion when it's not government.) It could mean that our politicians are paranoid. It could also mean that they want to interfere in the competition between Huawei and Cisco so that Cisco gets an advantage in the US. After all, it's the norm today for national politicians to grant favored status to companies they like.

 

[M Basta]

@Paul Schmehl

You make some valid arguments, and I get your point, but EDS never reached the heights or reaches of Huwaei, not even with the help of a major giant. EDS at most was a $10B company, and that was after GE bought them and made them that big. Under Perot's ownership they were probably in the hundreds of millions for revenue. Without GE, Perot, by himself was nowhere near that. In comparison, Huawei is now a $60B company. Did this military man do that by himself? How? Or, like Perot, did he get help from someone else to make that sort of giant leap? Remember, Huawei builds and controls vast sectors and entire communication infrastructures for several countries (mostly in Africa and Asia) and they have been aggressively trying to enter the US and North American market. Hughes, well...he's another matter altogether.

So, one of the main questions at the heart of this is ownership: who really owns this company? Here's a snippet from Wiki (with sources cited):

Ownership
Officially, Huawei is an employee-owned company, a fact the company emphasizes to distance itself from allegations of government control.[5] What “employee-owned” means in practice at Huawei, however, is quite complex—so much so that according to the Chinese media company Caixin, “even longtime employees admit the [employee shareholding] system is nearly impossible to understand.”[57]

Ren retains a direct 1.42 percent share of the company. The remainder of the shares is held by “a trade union committee tied to the affiliate Shenzhen Huawei Investment Holding Co.”[58] This body represents Huawei’s employee shareholders. About 64 percent of Huawei staff participate in this scheme (approximately 61,000 Chinese employees; the 50,000-plus foreign employees are not eligible[59]), and hold what the company calls “virtual restricted shares.” These shares are nontradable and are allocated to reward performance.[60] When employees leave Huawei, their shares revert to the company, which compensates them for their holding.[61] Although employee shareholders receive dividends, it is reported that they have no information on their holding.[58]

Employees' shares do not entitle them to any voice in management decisions.[citation needed]Richard McGregor, author of The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers, claimed that the majority of shares are likely owned by Ren Zhengfei and Ren's managers, though the company states Ren directly owns less than 1.5%.[47]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

 

[Paul Schmehl]

I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds on this. Let's say the Chinese government owns the company outright. (Probably not true, but for the sake of argument....) What difference would that make? The only way they can control the equipment they sell ("shut down the entire country with the flip of a switch", as you put it) is by installing a back door. I can guarantee you that some very talented security professionals from all around the world have investigated that possibility thoroughly. Here's an article that says a back door was found in Huawei equipment - placed there at the request of the NSA. http://www.techeye.net/business/huawei-products-do-have-backdoors Security professionals look for unexplained traffic leaving their networks as a routine matter. If Huawei was installing back doors for the Chinese government, it would be public knowledge, and their business would die.

The bottom line is, if they make good equipment, they will thrive. And American politicians are being more than a little hypocritical when they demagogue Huawei for being controlled by the Chinese government when the NSA literally forces US companies to give them access to data so they can track "terrorists". It reminds me of the biblical aphorism about cleaning the mote out of your own eye before criticizing the speck in someone else's.

 

[M Basta]

I think it's extremely relevant (for obvious reasons) if the Chinese Military does indeed own the company, not least of which is its importance to competing foreign powers with fundamentally differing opinions on governing, among other things. If it doesn't make any difference who owns it, then why not clearly reveal the owners, or, better yet, why be so secretive about it. As it stands, nobody really knows who owns it. This is one of the main reasons everyone from the US, to Canadian, Australian and Indian governments have either banned or are highly suspicious of the company, whose name, btw, literally means "China" or "Chinese Achievement".

The other side of the argument you pointed out is the alleged backdoor vulnerabilities in their equipment. Backdoor? Who needs a backdoor when you can easily walk in the front door. The number of security vulnerabilities in Huawei made products is vast: http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-5979/Huawei.html

It begs the question: is it by design or by incompetence?

 

[Paul Schmehl]

Of course none of this has anything to do with the graphics chipset for dash cams......

I don't have a problem with you refusing to buy anything Huawai makes. I just think the graphics is superior to anything else I've seen. And no, I haven't seen them all.

 

[runtohell121]

This post sure is getting off topic...

 

[SawMaster]

Far from just that, it's run through the guardrail across the opposing lanes and into a sewer pipe

This being an international forum, some respect for all nations and all people is certainly called for. No government anywhere tells the whole truth publicly, and all of them who are able to spy on each other and try to manipulate things to their own favor. It's always been that way and always will be.

I don't care who makes a new chipset, I just want to know how well it works for the applications I'm interested in.

Phil

 

[M Basta]

Of course none of this has anything to do with the graphics chipset for dash cams......

I don't have a problem with you refusing to buy anything Huawai makes. I just think the graphics is superior to anything else I've seen. And no, I haven't seen them all.

I agree the conversation has veered off-topic, so this will be my last comment on this.

I posted the video simply as a general reference about the company and its history. To me, the company-product relationship is always relevant because whenever I'm buying anything from any company, whether it's a switch, a graphics chipset or a rubber case, I'm essentially submitting a vote of confidence or support with my pocketbook for that company and its future. If Company X has some long history of credible accusations of being involved in harvesting shark fins and rhino tusks (as an example), I definitely would like to know so I can make a critically thought-out decision on whether or not I'd want to shop there, regardless of how shiny their toys may be. But that's me; I understand different things matter to different people.

In the end, we're fortunate to have the freedom to choose and decide, whatever that thought-process may entail.