 "No relation with the Chinese govt: John Suffolk")
Is there a pattern of security threats?
With technology comes risk. Cyber threats are getting linked to mobile devices. People who want to break into your system will use all possible ways to do that. With the internet connecting more and more devices, risk will increase in both the personal space and national security. But it depends on the way you use technology. There needs to be a global standard that ensures consistency in security measures. There are plenty of best practices and research that we can refer to.
Some US lawmakers have claimed Huawei’s equipment could pose a threat to national security. India also has put restrictions on government contracts to Chinese equipment makers like you.
There is a perception that all telecom equipment of Huawei is sourced from China. It’s because of the name on the box. The reality is that about 70 per cent is sourced from suppliers around the world, including the US. Also, about 70 per cent of our business actually comes from outside of China. We do not have any relation with the Chinese government and we do lose contracts to the US vendors in China.
True, stringent security norms are required. But it should be applicable for every equipment maker. Countries have their own standards and all equipment makers should comply those, irrespective of their country of origin. Over time, every country will realise that restricting suppliers is not the way forward. The only way to reduce cyber security risks is through global cooperation between governments, businesses and consumers.
We understand and respect any government’s efforts to protect its citizens from all possible security threats. We operate in around 140 countries and try to satisfy all governments and their requirements. Today, almost all companies source equipment from China, while most of the software is made in India and hardware comes from around the world. If the objective is to ensure higher security, putting restrictions on a particular company will not help. We are open and transparent; our job is to make people understand what we do, how we work and what security measures we take in making equipment.
The concern raised was that the Chinese government might tell Huawei what to do.
In our latest cyber security white paper, we have shown how we limit the chances of any government trying to put pressure on Huawei to do wrong things. We break up the process within the company to ensure no one person has full control of a product. Everything goes through multiple levels of verification outside the people on the product team.
Are country-specific products the answer?
That might not be always possible. We do comply with country-specific security norms. We have about 500 lawyers who track regulatory changes in all the 140 countries we operate, so that we stay ready for all situations.
Has there been any change in perception of Huawei in your regular dialogue with the Indian government?
Yes, we have been hugely successful in changing the perception through open discussion and regular dialogues with the governments. Different governments prioritise issues related to cyber security and national security in different ways, depending on the risks. On national security issues, we should be more open and transparent. The standard India follows is pretty good and in sync with the global practice. The Indian government is more rational, realistic, open and logical in working with private companies. It’s about creating a level-playing field. The Indian government is also setting up a testing lab in private-public-partnership.
This will create a level-playing field for all equipment makers. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2014. We believe this is a very progressive step.