Huawei – communicating innocence?

For this week’s blog it was a hard choice between focusing on what the rise of The Independent Group means to political PR, and how Chinese communications equipment giant Huawei is meeting its own communications and PR challenges. Given British politics is likely to have changed over the next week, and we’re currently in the middle of telecoms industry shindig Mobile World Congress (MWC), I’ll go for the Huawei option.

In many ways Huawei is a victim of its own success – from a brand that nobody knew how to pronounce a year ago, it has rocketed into the public consciousness, although not for all the right reasons. Allegations of potential backdoors in its communications kit that could allow the Chinese state to spy on data have led Donald Trump to call for it to be banned as a worldwide supplier to future 5G networks (Australia and New Zealand have obliged). At the same time its CFO has been arrested in Canada at the behest of the US, being accused of sanctions busting, and an employee arrested in Poland for alleged industrial espionage.

Photo by Burst on Pexels.com

And how has it responded? Essentially it has come out swinging, in a way that is either very confident, very arrogant or a combination of both. At MWC it has signalled that it wants to break the Apple/Samsung high end smartphone duopoly by launching one of the world’s first foldable phones, the Huawei Mate X, just a week after its Korean rival announced its own model.

It has also used MWC to go on the front foot and completely deny that there are or ever will be backdoors in its products, with its chairman Guo Ping stressing, “We don’t do bad things” and describing US accusations of security issues as lacking any evidence. Given the importance of 5G to a whole range of innovations, such as the Internet of Things, driverless cars, and being able to download a whole film in 6 seconds, questions about security are valid, whoever is providing the kit. But by going on the front foot and calling for industry solidarity, while having a pop at Trump, Huawei seems to feel confident that it can win doubters round.

And this isn’t the total of its comms strategy – there’s been a huge rise in glossy print advertising emphasising its trustworthiness (following a recent Facebook tactic), and it has been touting its relationship with Britain’s communications security agency, GCHQ as a model to follow. Under a partnership, GCHQ has been testing Huawei’s technology and will report back on any issues it finds. However, this has been undermined by a hardening of rhetoric, with GCHQ head, Jeremy Fleming, stressing the need to understand the opportunities and threats that China’s technology advances provide.

From a market position it is easy to worry about Huawei, as it has grown rapidly to a position of power in a key global industry as it is about to adopt new technology. Unlike other Chinese companies such as JD, Tencent and Alibaba which are focused on their domestic markets and developing companies, Huawei is unashamedly looking to lead on a worldwide scale. Not for nothing does its name translate as “Chinese Achievement”. And at time when we’re getting more conscious of our privacy, both individuals and governments are much more focused on who has access to our data. Despite its communications so far, Huawei hasn’t convinced security experts or even the general public of its benign intentions – it is difficult to prove a negative in an age of conspiracies and social media. My advice? Focus on openness and innovation, and the benefits of 5G, build relationships with the right experts and invest locally to get governments on side. And if you can sort out Brexit, you can spy on my communications all you like………….

James Bond, public relations and the drive for increased surveillance

I read recently that government ministers spend over a quarter of their time on public relations or similar activities. That’s not surprising given they face a combination of an ever more cynical electorate, lobbyists, pressure groups, opposition MPs and, of course, their own backbenchers.

Obviously everyone thinks they have an idea about the bad side of government spin, with its mixture of cunning, bullying and calling in favours (as exemplified by Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It). But increasingly PR is necessary to try to educate and convince the press and public about the merits of a decision, in order to gain the support it needs.

The perfect case in point is the current debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill, a draft of which is being published this week. This aims to strengthen the capabilities of the security services to detect and foil crime. However in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations concerning the scale of current surveillance technology, and how it is used, there is widespread worry about what new legislation will enable the security services to do.

In the balance between privacy and law enforcement, where do you draw the line? For example, the draft bill will compel Internet Service Providers to retain a full record of your online activity for 12 months, in case they are needed for investigations. The vast majority of us would support their use against terrorists, paedophiles and organised crime, but the fact that a record of all of our surfing is stored and can potentially be accessed by law enforcement officers does scare and worry people.

Because of this, there has been an unprecedented campaign to win over the public. The Times was given high level access to Britain’s spy agencies, from GCHQ to MI5 and MI6, for example. This enabled those backing the bill to get their message across that they are foiling plots aimed at the UK on a regular basis and that without changes to the law it is only a matter of time before something slips through the net.

At the same time the anti-campaign has received backing from an unlikely corner – James Bond himself. The latest Bond movie, Spectre, features the normal array of international bad guys plotting to take over the world. But the key twist (spoiler alert) is that they want to do this by gaining access to the surveillance systems of the security services around the world – even to the extent of bankrolling a new UK security service building. Of course, in the end their evil plot is defeated, but the interesting point is that C, the new head of British joint intelligence, is a bad guy, in league with the chief villain himself. Hardly the ringing endorsement of increased surveillance that the public would expect – and perhaps politicians backing the bill were hoping for.

With the bill itself just published, expect the debate to rage on – with public relations a key tactic used by both sides to put their case. Though what the government and security services can do to top James Bond will be an interesting challenge……

Social networks – command and control centres for terrorists?

It wasn’t that long ago that the only spies in the public eye were James Bond and prominent Cold War defectors. But over recent years high-ranking intelligence chiefs have stepped out of the shadows to appear in public, write books and give interviews. They’ll be inviting the public to tour MI5 or the Pentagon next. It all seems a bit counter-intuitive as I’d have thought keeping a low profile was one of the key skills that intelligence agencies were looking for.

The latest spy to break cover is Robert Hannigan, the new head of GCHQ. In an interview with the Financial Times to mark starting in his new role he lambasted social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, calling them “command-and-control networks for terrorists and criminals.” One of his key concerns is the spread of encryption techniques on common mobile phone operating systems – both Apple and Google have recently made encryption a standard feature that users can opt-out of rather than having to opt-in to use.

This is obviously good for privacy, but bad for those looking to monitor the activities of terrorist cells. In his article Hannigan issued a plea for more openness and collaboration between tech companies and the security services.

But in my opinion he’s overlooking two major factors. Firstly, demonising social media is a bit like criticising the telephone network for being used to plan a bank robbery. It is, as tech companies claim, an agnostic platform. If the police suspect a crime is being committed (or planned) there are processes in place to work with a social network to assist them in their enquiries. Normal people don’t see Facebook as a threat to their safety – though, given what some seem happy to share online, perhaps they should.

And secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is a lack of trust in the security services. The revelations of Edward Snowden showed, as many suspected, that our online activities are being spied on. Recent revelations about police being able to access the telephone records of journalists without needing a warrant using Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislation just add to this.

The trouble with the whole debate about online privacy is that it is becoming increasingly polarised. On the one hand social networks support their ‘free’ business model by collecting and selling data on the interests of their users, allowing them to be targeted with ads. Then at the other end of the spectrum the security services are demanding more access to the very same data. The people in the middle are the users, the vast majority of whom have no idea of how much they are being tracked when they go about their business online. What is needed is more education so that it is clearer about how they can legitimately protect themselves online, rather than both sides scaremongering about the other. Terrorism is a threat to a free internet, but equally so is draconian, untargeted snooping by intelligence agencies and the erosion of user privacy by the networks that we rely on.

 

Paranoid Android

This is not a good time for the paranoid to be on the internet. In the wake of the first set of revelations from Edward Snowden, more is emerging about the extent of online eavesdropping by the security services on both sides of the Atlantic. According to Snowden British intelligence agency GCHQ showed off the ability to monitor YouTube video views, Facebook ‘likes’ and Blogger visits in real-time to its US colleagues back in 2012. The programme, named Squeaky Dolphin, even had its own logo (though looking at the design, I don’t think the spies should give up their day jobs quite yet).

Even worse, spooks have been accessing smartphone data while people play Angry Birds, enabling them to get hold of user’s personal information. Presumably the game was picked due to its global popularity, rather than being a cunning ruse by GCHQ and the NSA to enable staffs to play it during work time.

And in an unrelated story, a security company has found an internet-enabled fridge that has been hacked and is now sending spam. This is particularly worrying given the rise of the Internet of Things, with more and more devices and appliances around us connected to the web. Essentially each of these is a small, but powerful computer, often without the same level of security and protection than you see on a PC or tablet. Being able to hijack a fridge is one thing, but as the Internet of Things spreads, more sinister opportunities arise – remotely controlling smart cars or switching on and off hundreds of air conditioners to bring down a power grid are all possibilities.

Taking these stories together leads to two concerns in my mind. Firstly, internet privacy. I think most people understand the need to collect information on identified threats to public safety, provided due legal process has been followed. What Snowden seems to have uncovered is technological spying that has gone mad – exactly what you’d expect if you put a large bunch of very intelligent geeks in a room, give them all the resources they need and exonerate them from any qualms of conscience by saying it is in the national interest. So what happens to information that is found online that is not linked to terrorism but minor, non-criminal misdemeanours? GPS data that shows an MP was with his mistress when he should have been elsewhere or evidence of unsavoury (but not illegal) internet activities for example. The nature of technology means this information is unlikely to disappear, but will sit on servers somewhere, with no guarantee that it won’t be pulled out in the future.

Secondly, security concerns have the ability to derail the Internet of Things. As Google’s recent purchase of Nest shows, market momentum is increasing. But if people add the worry of security issues to privacy concerns they are less likely to embrace the opportunities that the Internet of Things offers when it comes to increased efficiency and energy saving. After all, I don’t want GCHQ to know what’s in my fridge – or burglars to know when I’m away on holiday.

There’s been a lot of talk from politicians about reining in the security services and that needs to be formalised to reassure the law-abiding – instead of enabling spying, the tech industry should be focusing its intelligence on improving the actual security of the devices and applications that control our lives.