cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/4126080
The concerns have intensified since July, when reports surfaced of an alleged €12.3 million contract between 2021 and 2025 for Huawei to store sensitive judicial wiretap data for the interior ministry.
…
While the political row has focused on the interior ministry, several public tenders made public in the past weeks reveal contracts for “repairing” or “expanding” existing Huawei storage equipment in other state departments.
Such is the €322.000 two-year contract signed last October by the national railway operator (ADIF) to “repair” Huawei technology already incorporated into the country’s rail network communication systems.
Spain’s national healthcare system also awarded a €477.000 contract to national telecom giant Telefónica to “maintain” over the next two years an existing Huawei storage hardware installed in its IT department.
“These are common practices to ensure the proper functioning of this equipment,” a healthcare system spokesperson said.
According to them, the hardware “does not store databases or information from social security system applications” but is “used to store server configuration information and analyse anomalies.” Euractiv could not verify this claim independently.
Other public tenders from the Spanish police, dating back to 2022, show Huawei backup systems used in the force’s storage infrastructure for the “comprehensive border control storage system of the police.”
…
In Madrid, magistrates and law enforcement are particularly worried about the Chinese firm handling highly sensitive police wiretap data.
"We are neither blind nor deaf, and the fact that a company has its headquarters outside Spain causes us concern, " a magistrate told Euractiv.
“There may be delays or difficulties in gathering this information, or in the worst case, the request may even be denied due to their own regulations,” they said, adding that there is also a risk of “sensitive data being leaked.”
Law enforcement agencies share those concerns, especially over the potential exposure of sensitive information at a time when security forces are under intense scrutiny for prosecuting high-profile political figures.
…
They only asked “who is the lowest bidder?” but never “why is the lowest bidder?”