> "If Huawei has indeed acted in bad faith, then make their actions public so other nations/institutions avoid them"
What if laying out the evidence implicitly compromises the only window into Huawei's alleged operations? Is it more important to try and win the public over, or to keep your advantage?
And would/could the public even be convinced? How many times has the US government warned about the security risks of partnerships with Chinese firms? How many cautionary tales do we have/need? After Boeing, Google, et al were very publicly compromised and all leaked data pointed to Beijing ... the evidence was all but dismissed by those with a direct financial incentive to ignore it.
What if laying out the evidence implicitly compromises the only window into Huawei's alleged operations? Is it more important to try and win the public over, or to keep your advantage?
And would/could the public even be convinced? How many times has the US government warned about the security risks of partnerships with Chinese firms? How many cautionary tales do we have/need? After Boeing, Google, et al were very publicly compromised and all leaked data pointed to Beijing ... the evidence was all but dismissed by those with a direct financial incentive to ignore it.
Why would another round of that be of any use?