UK to allow Chinese into 5G network

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#41
May's final lapse of judgement.
It's an insane decision. Anyone with an ounce of sanity can see letting an potential adversary supply components for your critical infrastructure is plain dumb, particularly when the US and many of your senior ministers have warned against it.

May seems to be doing what she wants without any thought of the security implications or long term consequences of the decision. I seriously doubt whether she has the technical knowledge nor the intellectual firepower to fully understand the implications of her decision - and in that position you defer to expert advice.

Wordsmith
 
#42
China is "adversarial"? So what exactly has China done that could be described as "adversarial"? Just like Russia, China's interested in good trade relations with the rest of the world, not in invading and occupying the UK, Europe or indeed anywhere else. Neither country has ever done anything to deserve it, but both have become the nemesis of the US. As such, we're subjected to constant (US) xenophobic propaganda that the Chinese and/or the Russians are going to blanket other nations with troops and eat all their children.

It all goes back to the PNAC document of the late 1980s which mandated that the US should achieve "full-spectrum" dominance over the rest of the world. That lofty aim is now being thoroughly frustrated by both the Chinese and the Russians. Therefore, it's only natural that the Septics should do everything in their power to demonise both nations.

You don't seem to have any difficulty with the fact that a Canuck is running the Bank of England, that the Boxheeds, Frogs and various other nations are running the UK railways, along with the electricity, gas and water utilities. It's also notable that when Hinkley Point was being discussed and negotiated, there was nary a mention that the Chinese might possibly be forming a Fifth Column within the UK. As usual, it's a question of "cui bono", innit?

MsG
Tibet ring any bells?
 
#43
I can't help but imagine the folks at GCHQ are in full "headless chicken" mode, running round the offices with cans of petrol, splashing it over computers, servers and the suspiciously odd-looking new recruit Mi Spi Yin.
 
#45
I loved the fact that the BBC said something like " it will only supply "non-critical" infrastructure like antenna"
Well pardon me, but doesn't most if not all radio traffic go through an antenna. We would be better off letting them supply PSU's and the like. Bloody stupid woman will probably be gone before the contract is signed.
Agree with everything except your last point. I wouldn't put it past May to cling on until the Tories can finally force her out in about 12 months time. Or until she's humiliated in a general election, whichever comes first. Never underestimate this woman's selfishness and self-delusion.

In political terms, May's in the Fuhrerbunker right now, ranting about traitors and issuing orders to armies that no longer exist. She probably knows she can't win. All she can do is drag as many of her enemies down with her as possible. This is her Gotterdammerung.
 
Last edited:
#47
The Chinese don't need to spy on us covertly to see how fugged up admin wise in the gov and Brexit wise and don't know what we want ourselves or to find out anything confidential of use such as how our Armed Forces are deteriorating in terms of man power and investment as well as technology, we publish that all ourselves via relevant news channels.

Anyone care to highlight problems has with us however apart from wanting a slice of the pie on the UK market like all other international competitors?
 
#48
Utter insanity. Rejected by the US/Canada/NZ and everyone else and yet we are going to allow them in. 'Non-critical infrastructure only' my @rrse.
 
#49
Utter insanity. Rejected by the US/Canada/NZ and everyone else and yet we are going to allow them in. 'Non-critical infrastructure only' my @rrse.
Communications infrastructure is critical infrastructure. All of it.

If one looks at the ubiquity of chipsets predicted as part of the Internet of Things, I’d like to see what, in our wisdom, we have judged to be safe that the Americans and others have missed.

Once you open Pandora’s Box, etc..
 
#50
I still defer to Gen Michael Hayden's remarks....

“God did not make enough briefing slides on Huawei to convince me that having them involved in our critical communications infrastructure was going to be okay. This is not blind prejudice on my part. This was my considered view based on a four-decade career as an intelligence officer,”
Ex-CIA chief accuses Huawei of industrial espionage

I suppose the qualifier is *critical*. Thought I share the misgivings of those who have posted thus far.

There was a lengthy entry onthe NCSC blog about this issue here -

NCSC

As I understand it, the UK's approach is to dismantle and examine their kit; rather than blanket ban. Then to exclude from critical systems (subject to my above, "what is critical").

With the move to attacks on supply chain rather than the industrial target itself, critical is (I suggest) a rather wide term now. I think we need to understand the fragility of our networked ("IoT") life.
 
#51
Fact.

UK investment is heavily going outside the UK.

Cheaper manpower in India means more call centres for outsourcing commercial packages, none of the legislation you have here, pay peanuts well below the minimum wage and hire and fire as you like, no pension.

Investment in Chinese made textiles which quality isn't actually too bad means large procurement discounts irrelevant of human rights abuses.

Why not cash in on oppertunities to make friends and benefit for the national Infrastructure?
 
#52
If I pop to my local library I can find reference books for exports, with lists of possibly sensitive technologies, chemicals that could be used for explosive or chemical weapon manufacture, communications equipment that could be used by hostile military or intelligence services, and restriction for certain regions and countries.

Surely CESG et al provide a similar thing to Government regarding imports?
 
#54
Fact.

UK investment is heavily going outside the UK.

Cheaper manpower in India means more call centres for outsourcing commercial packages, none of the legislation you have here, pay peanuts well below the minimum wage and hire and fire as you like, no pension.

Investment in Chinese made textiles which quality isn't actually too bad means large procurement discounts irrelevant of human rights abuses.

Why not cash in on oppertunities to make friends and benefit for the national Infrastructure?
Well, just for a start, you potentially risk other members of the Five Eyes community restricting the share of vital intelligence. Including America itself. Given how stretched our police and security services are, do you really want to make their job even more difficult by reducing their access to vital intelligence?
 
#55
Well, just for a start, you potentially risk other members of the Five Eyes community restricting the share of vital intelligence. Including America itself. Given how stretched our police and security services are, do you really want to make their job even more difficult by reducing their access to vital intelligence?
Well, 5 eyes, just became 6 eyes. Might as welcome them in with a gathering over some yum cha.
 
#56
The UK is currently desperate for new friends thanks to a disastrous vote in 2016 to damage the UK to such an extent it has to compromise on national security in order to secure new relationships with other countries having torpedoed our current ones.

You campaigned and voted for the policy that forced the government into this predicament.

Expect more of this

Well done

You total penis
Baggy, this thread is not about Brexit. Stick to the topic at hand.
 

Nemesis44UK

LE
Book Reviewer
#57
China is "adversarial"? 1) So what exactly has China done that could be described as "adversarial"? 2) Just like Russia, China's interested in good trade relations with the rest of the world, not in invading and occupying the UK, Europe or indeed anywhere else. Neither country has ever done anything to deserve it, but both have become the nemesis of the US. As such, we're subjected to constant (US) xenophobic propaganda that the Chinese and/or the Russians are going to blanket other nations with troops and eat all their children.

It all goes back to the PNAC document of the late 1980s which mandated that the US should achieve "full-spectrum" dominance over the rest of the world. That lofty aim is now being thoroughly frustrated by both the Chinese and the Russians. Therefore, it's only natural that the Septics should do everything in their power to demonise both nations.

3) You don't seem to have any difficulty with the fact that a Canuck is running the Bank of England, that the Boxheeds, Frogs and various other nations are running the UK railways, along with the electricity, gas and water utilities. It's also notable that when Hinkley Point was being discussed and negotiated, there was nary a mention that the Chinese might possibly be forming a Fifth Column within the UK. As usual, it's a question of "cui bono", innit?

MsG
To answer your points:

1. Yes, China is adversarial. They aren't part of NATO, they aren't allied to us in any way. In fact, the last engagement with us was in Korea as our adversary. Or are you forgetting the 100,000 British troops that fought there?

2. China is like Russia in as much as they don't want to invade or occupy the UK or Europe, they've never done anything to deserve it? You appear to be forgetting the Russian interference in Brexit, the US elections and oh, er, the little known annexation of Ukraine and the posturing over Estonia?

3. No, I don't have a problem with a Canuck, German or French running anything. They are either Five Eyes or European. They are our allies and can be trusted.

The Chinese and the Russians are not our friends. Philosophically, they are diametrically opposed to us. It's possible to find some common ground and work together for mutual benefit, but WW3 will be fought using cyberspace and power projection through the internet as well as conventional weapons. To have a Chinese built reactor, or comms system that could be turned off or overloaded is a massive security risk.

Our natural allies will not countenance Huawei, so neither should we.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top