数字化大师尼葛洛庞帝公开对“华为事件”说“不”!

发布时间:2019-05-25

近日,美国政府以“科技网络安全”为借口封锁华为,引发社会热议。众多专家学者纷纷对该事件发表了自己的看法。


其中,数字化大师、爱乐奇投资人尼古拉斯·尼葛洛庞帝也在fastcompany.com上公开发文,反对美国的做法。他表示,美国不应该禁止华为,应该欢迎华为。


Nicholas_Negroponte_USNA_20090415.jpg


以下为尼葛洛庞帝教授发布的原文:


Don’t ban Huawei. Do this instead

Formally preventing U.S. companies and universities from conducting business and research with Huawei—the next step beyond the current pressure on the company from Congress and the Trump administration—will not make America’s communications networks safer. Instead, it will hurt U.S. businesses and consumers, while creating an illusory sense of security that could actually increase risk.


An official ban of the use of Chinese telecommunications equipment by U.S. companies might come in the form of a “national emergency” based on an “extraordinary threat.” But the real threat is that unsubstantiated accusations against Huawei will prevent the U.S. from having a more important, more rational conversation about the need to manage cyber risk. This failure may prevent the U.S. from achieving the technological and economic progress it could have made, had it chosen to look more closely at the facts. This is particularly true at places like my university, MIT, which had to stop research with Huawei, the most advanced partner we had in the telecommunications field.


The desire to ban companies like Huawei has little to do with technology, and nothing to do with effective risk management. Huawei has an unblemished 30-year cybersecurity record and more than 500 satisfied telecom customers around the world. None of them has ever experienced a security breach related to Huawei’s equipment. Furthermore, the company’s research today leads the world and is widely copied.


LISTEN TO THE DHS

Concerns about Huawei based on geopolitics are understandable, but are best addressed by collaboration, as well as a comprehensive risk management approach, as recommended by America’s own Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A ban, by contrast, would create several harmful effects and a guarantee that we will fall further behind.


First, a ban would exclude a major source of innovation—ideas, people, and products—from the U.S. technology market. Last year, Huawei was the fifth-largest investor in R&D worldwide, outspending companies such as Apple, Intel, and GE. Huawei began researching 5G wireless technology 10 years ago, and so far has invested more than $2 billion in 5G research, including $800 million last year alone. This led an expert at Britain’s largest telecom operator, BT, to call Huawei the “only true 5G supplier right now.”


When governments block major vendors from their markets, competition is reduced. Costs go up, businesses curtail their investments, and there is less innovation overall, which means that consumers pay higher prices for inferior products and services. Reducing competition is especially problematic in the United States, where more than 90% of wireless equipment is sold by just two companies, Ericsson and Nokia (neither of which is based in the U.S.). This market concentration has led small wireless operators to complain for years about the high prices they would pay for network equipment if they had to use either of those vendors.


But the benefits of competition go far beyond price. Excluding Huawei would prevent many small U.S. wireless carriers from expanding their networks and upgrading to more advanced 5G technology in the coming years, keeping them from offering new and better services, and more innovative products. This would mean fewer new jobs created, and fewer improvements in efficiency for U.S. industries.


A ban would also hurt small U.S. operators by forcing them to scrap the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of equipment they bought from Huawei and purchase replacement equipment. Some smaller carriers could be driven into bankruptcy by the cost of ripping out existing gear and repurchasing it from larger vendors that charge higher prices.


But the harm done by a ban would extend beyond small telecom operators and would also affect their customers: the homes, schools, libraries, and small businesses that rely on the operators to provide connectivity in parts of the U.S. not served by the big telecom companies.


In particular, American farmers would suffer. Farming provides a livelihood for 2 million American families, and today’s farms need broadband mobile connections to analyze crop yields, soil conditions, and other data. But net income at American farms income fell last year to a 12-year low. Without reliable data connections, American farmers will not benefit from the productivity gains enjoyed by their counterparts elsewhere in the world, or the even more important gains expected from the technology represented by 5G.


TEST, DON’T BAN

Instead of a ban, a better approach would be to test—rigorously and comprehensively–the software code of all vendors that goes into U.S. networks. Some countries already do this. Last December, Germany encouraged telecom equipment vendors to set up independent verification labs where third-party experts could scrutinize code for vulnerabilities. Huawei opened a testing facility in Bonn last November and another in Brussels earlier this year. In the U.K., government representatives have overseen a Huawei testing center for the past eight years, which U.K. government representatives have characterized as the “most rigorous” in the world.


America’s own security experts advocate a more sophisticated approach to managing cyber risk than simply banning companies based on where they are headquartered. A strategy document released last spring by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not target particular countries in the misguided belief that threats originate only in designated parts of the world, or that only the products of companies from certain countries are vulnerable. And on March 18 of this year, senior Trump administration officials, speaking to reporters on background, emphasized that U.S. cybersecurity efforts are “country- and company-agnostic.”


To enhance its position as a global technology leader, the U.S. should collaborate with leading technology companies and their research labs, rather than banning them. Then, in the marketplace, it should establish an objective standard for deciding whether a company’s technology can be trusted—a standard that applies to all technology vendors, including American ones, that want to sell to the U.S. market. This would be a far more effective strategy than banning vendors based on their country of origin. Unlike a ban, a comprehensive approach that applies to all vendors would make America’s digital networks more secure and great again.


不要禁止华为,而是应该做这些事


第一步是阻止美国公司和大学与华为开展业务和研究,接下来公司会迫于美国国会及特朗普政府给予的压力……这些做法并不会让美国的通信网络更加安全。相反,它不仅会伤害美国企业和消费者,更创造出一种虚幻的、可能会增加风险的安全感。

 

美国公司正式禁用中国电信设备(指“华为”)的理由可能是“对国家安全造成威胁”。但真正的威胁是利用毫无证据的指控来踢开华为,这将会阻止美国对管理网络风险的必要性进行一个十分重要、必须理性的讨论。缺乏这些讨论,极可能会导致美国无法实现它本可以取得的技术和经济进步。这对于我们麻省理工学院而言更是如此,因为华为是我们在电信领域合作的伙伴中最先进的。

 

华为拥有30年无懈可击的网络安全记录,以及全球500多家对其表示满意的电信客户。他们都没有出现过与华为设备相关的安全漏洞。目前,华为的研究已处于世界领先地位并被广泛复制。

 

据国土安全部所说

 

美国国土安全部都曾建议,针对华为设备安全的担忧,最好通过合作以及全面的风险管理手段来解决,而禁令却有多个害处,并会导致我们进一步落后。

 

首先,禁令将会排除最主要的创新来源:那些来自于美国技术市场的创意、人才和产品。去年,华为对于研发的投资超过了苹果、英特尔、通用电气等公司,位居世界第五。华为从10年前开始研究5G无线技术,并已经在5G研究上投入了20多亿美元(去年就有8亿美元)。也因此,来自英国最大的电信运营商BT的专家称华为是“目前世界上唯一一个真实的5G供应商”。

 

当政府阻止主要供应商进入其市场时,更少的竞争会引起连锁反应:成本上升、企业减少投资,从而导致整体创新减少……这意味着消费者会为劣质的产品和服务付出更多的钱。在美国这是个很大的问题,因为美国市场上超过90%的无线设备都来由爱立信和诺基亚这两家外国公司。这种情况也导致众多小型电信运营商常常抱怨,如果他们必须使用这两家供应商的其中一家,那他们必须为网络设备支付高昂的价格。


这些情况造成的影响远远超出了设备价格本身。在未来几年内,禁止华为将大大影响众多美国小型电信运营商将网络升级到5G,甚至是影响他们提供更好地服务及研发更多的创新产品。这都意味着新的工作岗位会越来越少,美国工业效率的提升也会减慢。

 

禁令还会令小型美国运营商遭受损失:放弃之前从华为购买的价值数亿美元的设备,另行购买更换别的设备。一些小型的航空公司可能会因此而破产,因为他们需要换掉现有设备,并从大型供应商手中以高价购置设备。

 

不仅如此,禁令造成的伤害还会影响到小型电信运营商的客户:家庭、学校、图书馆和小型企业。他们主要依赖运营商在美国部分地区提供连接。

 

美国的农民也会因此而受苦。200万个美国家庭以农业为生,而现代化的农场则需要移动宽带来分析农作物产量、土壤条件和其他种植数据。但在去年,美国农场的净收入已经下降到12年来的最低点。如果没有可靠的网络,美国农民将无法再享受移动网络技术带来的便利,更不会享受到由5G技术带来的新发展。


以测试来取代禁止


比禁令更好的方法是严格、全面地测试进入美国网络的所有供应商的软件代码。已经有一些国家这样做了。去年12月,德国鼓励电信设备供应商建立独立的验证实验室,第三方专家可以审查漏洞代码。华为分别于去年11月和今年在波恩、布鲁塞尔开设了测试机构;在英国,政府为主导的测试中心已经花了8年时间监督华为,英国政府代表将其称为世界上“最严谨”的测试中心。


美国自己的安全专家也提倡采用更复杂的方法来管理网络风险,而不仅仅是根据总部所在地来禁止公司。去年春天,美国国土安全部发布的战略文件并没有针对特定国家的内容,即威胁仅来自世界指定地区,或者只来自某些国家的公司产品易受攻击。今年3月18日,特朗普政府高级官员却在向记者发表讲话时强调,美国的网络安全工作“与特定国家和公司无关”。


为了提升其作为全球技术领导者的地位,美国应该与领先的技术公司及其研究实验室合作,而不是禁止它们。另外,在市场中,它应该建立一个客观的标准来决定公司的技术是否可以信任——这个标准适用于所有想要出售给美国市场的技术供应商,包括美国供应商。这比根据原产国来禁止供应商更有效。与禁令不同,适用于所有供应商的综合方法将使美国的数字网络更加安全并将再次发展。

 

尼葛洛庞帝教授的公开表态其实也代表了很多业内人士的看法:技术对世界的影响是显而易见的,人们应该与领先的公司及其他同业者合作,共同用技术改变世界。


也正是秉承着这样的理念,尼葛洛庞帝教授在创立MIT媒体实验室时,便一直这样要求自己的学生。爱乐奇创始人兼CEO潘鹏凯博士是该实验室中第一位中国大陆博士生,在实验室的经历也让他开始认识到,中国教育最大的变革应该是将应试的教育变成培养学习能力的教育。于是,他归国创办了爱乐奇。


PPK和老师们.jpg潘鹏凯博士与MIT媒体实验室的两位创始人


15年间,爱乐奇只专注一件事——让每个孩子爱上学习,学会学习。利用先进的教育理念和科学技术驱动教育变革,做教育企业的赋能者。“比起单打独斗,爱乐奇更希望能与校长和老师们一起合作、共同成长。”潘博士说。


也因此,爱乐奇与全国1500多家机构10000多所学校合作,为其提供从教材、平台、测评、运营到视频外教等一站式解决方案。收获了来自新东方、昂立、精锐、大桥、汇佳等多家知名连锁培训机构和全日制学校的好评与信赖。


“孩子是国家的未来,孩子的教育至关重要。”潘博士表示,爱乐奇愿以开放合作的态度,与更多的机构和校长合作,共同培养出世界公民和未来领袖




热点新闻