UK to allow Chinese into 5G network

@Guns

I declined to go for the low hanging fruit earlier, but I see it was not neccessary.

;)

The problem here is a fragmented 5EYES (which is a primary goal of Russia). This is another friction point which will be doutbless focussed on by a mischief making Russia adversary.

If ever there was a time to remember some simple advice, it is now:

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
 
I am shocked you know what a phone tower is...
We also know (and have seen) ‘NOFORN’. I’d suggest something about glass houses and chucking things, but ....... :)
 
i see HMG's transition to farce is nearly complete.

Ministers demand Huawei leak inquiry

"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act."
Sir Bernard Woolley
 
So, despite the other 5 Eyes community members not being willing to allow Huawei access into their 5G networks, due to security concerns, it looks like we have rolled over!

UK to allow Huawei to help build 5G

Perhaps the Government is too concerned that the Chinese will switch off the new nuclear power stations if we don't give in!

Madness. Sheer madness!

It's all part of the last 30+ years of Government policy, ie make sure as much of our infrastructure as possible transfers money from British consumers to non-UK entities.


I don't know why they do it, but do it they do.
 
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

China is philosophically opposed to our entire mode of statehood.

They are inimical towards democracy, the rule of law, intellectual and physical freedom and norms of international law.

They are currently building concentration camps with the aim of literally dismantling an entire culture.

We shouldn't be doing any business with the creepy *******, let alone treating them like respectable international players and handling them contract work in crucial national infrastructure.


Someone said up thread "the world's gone mad".

No, the world is sane, our politicians and Civil Service have gone weak.
 
No, the world is sane, our politicians and Civil Service have gone weak.
Hardly the fault of the Civil Service.

As I have quoted before, during the appeasment crisis Lord Vansittart is held to have said

The soul of our service is the loyalty with which we execute ordained error
Blame incompetent politcians be all means; they are the decision makers and leaders (allegedly).
 
Hardly the fault of the Civil Service.

As I have quoted before, during the appeasment crisis Lord Vansittart is held to have said



Blame incompetent politcians be all means; they are the decision makers and leaders (allegedly).

I suppose you're right up to a point, but surely the rôle of the CS includes telling the boss when he's dropping a bollock?


Much like the Platoon/Troop Sgt or a Staffy/WO2 helping Rupert out when he's about to make himself look very silly and possibly eradicate his chaps...?
 
I suppose you're right up to a point, but surely the rôle of the CS includes telling the boss when he's dropping a bollock? (...)
What makes you say that the decision made in this case does not conform with the technical advice given by the civil service? According to the story in the opening post, the problems are related to political and diplomatic strategy, which are the realm of the politicians.

Note the quote from the "retired senior intelligence official" who said the problems were not to do with Huawei's kit, bur rather with upsetting the US.
But one retired senior intelligence official recently told me his view on what to do about Huawei had changed.
In the past, he said, he had believed the policy of managing the risk had been sufficient. But now he was less sure.
The reason was not to do with any change in his view of what the company could do. Rather it was about the risks to relationships with close allies, namely those of the Five Eyes and US.
Here's a typical quote from a senior US official saying that the US needs to "dominate 5G, because it will be in our national interest to do so."
US military chief says America needs to 'step up, dominate 5G'
Faced with a tough challenge in telecommunications development from China, General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said American industry "needs to step up and dominate 5G, because it will be in our national interest to do so."
And here's what the head of the US FCC has said about why the US must "dominate 5G". The US Must Win the 5G Race With China for 2 Reasons, Says FCC Commissioner | Inverse
He says that there are economic benefits from setting the standards, and that is why he thinks that "winning is important".
“Getting there faster is a goal in and of itself,” Carr says. “The economic benefits that come with being a first-mover — and some of the standards-setting roles — are why I think winning it is important.”
He goes on to say that with previous generations (2G, 3G, 4G) there were big economic advantages to being the first country to implement the technology.
“We’ve seen with prior generations, whether it was moving from 2G, 3G, or 4G, that there is a big economic advantage to be the first mover as a country and a region in terms of the technology being deployed in your country first,” he says.
And that's basically what it's all about - deciding whether US companies are to be the ones who are the industry leaders and cream off all the profits or whether anyone else gets a look in. You don't see the same sort of hyperventilating over Apple iPhones after all, despite the fact that there is nothing preventing the Chinese companies who actually manufacture them from loading them to the gills with back doors if that's what they wanted to do.

And that in turn is why the UK and other countries are reluctant to stop 5G implementation and wait for the US to get their shit together and come up with a 5G industrial strategy that puts the US at the centre of things. There are expected to be many fields of business which will take advantage of 5G which don't necessarily involve selling telecoms kit, but rather involve things which use 5G as an enabler. The UK and others want to be the ones to get the "first mover" advantages in these areas and don't want to give up 'x' percentage of their future GDP based on not offending someone who sees this market as belonging to themselves.

So the UK put together a committee, including GCHQ specialists, to look into the issue. They took a look at the actual risks and came up with a plan they think addresses them adequately.

And if you think that this is a real threat, then as I said previously, having the headquarters address in Silicon Valley does nothing to address the fact that much of the kit would still be built in China, or Vietnam, or India, or some place like that, and that a lot of American companies have outsourced their embedded software to - wait for it - China. There are technical means of dealing with any serious security issues (see my previous post), but those reduce the dominance of proprietary vendors and so don't fit in with the US idea of 5G being a tool of a broader industrial strategy in which their own companies would hold all of the key pieces and collect royalties from everyone else.

Now it is quite possible that the UK government had handed the problem off to a security committee in the expectation that they would find reason to do what some politicians wanted to do anyway in order to not offend the US. And it is quite possible that the answer that committee came back with was an unwelcome one to those who were looking to ban Huawei kit for political and diplomatic reasons, which is why we are getting conflicting leaks as to what has been decided, if anything has. And it is quite possible that the report will be sent back to committee with instructions that they had given the "wrong" answer and are to think again and come up with the "right" one. But I have certainly seen nothing which suggests that the full and comprehensive advice (as opposed to cherry-picked elements) given by the civil service has recommended banning Huawei kit.
 
And that's basically what it's all about - deciding whether US companies are to be the ones who are the industry leaders and cream off all the profits or whether anyone else gets a look in. You don't see the same sort of hyperventilating over Apple iPhones after all, despite the fact that there is nothing preventing the Chinese companies who actually manufacture them from loading them to the gills with back doors if that's what they wanted to do.
I did like that - especially since it took considerable effort to attack and apparently unlock an iphone used by a terrorist....
 
The basic problem is that if you install Hauwei hardware/firmware and five years down the road some bright spark finds a backdoor or designed vulnerability in it - the UK is royally fornicated. It would take years and billions of pounds to rip out the affected systems and put in a secure alternative.

As I've said before, this is weapons grade stupidity.

Wordsmith
Wouldn't finding a 'backdoor' be a good opportunity for feeding some smart disinformation to the 'backdoor lurkers'?
 
China is philosophically opposed to our entire mode of statehood.

They are inimical towards democracy, the rule of law, intellectual and physical freedom and norms of international law.

They are currently building concentration camps with the aim of literally dismantling an entire culture.

We shouldn't be doing any business with the creepy *******, let alone treating them like respectable international players and handling them contract work in crucial national infrastructure.


Someone said up thread "the world's gone mad".

No, the world is sane, our politicians and Civil Service have gone weak.
I 'liked' this post. I wonder if I am now on some PRC sh1t list?
 
Wouldn't finding a 'backdoor' be a good opportunity for feeding some smart disinformation to the 'backdoor lurkers'?
Allegedly that's what has been happening to TOR for years.

Faced with a signifcant adversary; Law Enforcement resorts to information operations where tradecraft has failed rather than the technology.

On the recent Black Hat 2014 Talk Cancellation | Tor Blog

It is often easier to defeat what is in the chair, rather than what is on the desk.
 
I need to re-read this article to pick over, but I find it a very satisfying first read.

The Risks of Huawei Risk Mitigation

It particularly makes the point about the issue being a future (possibly near future) vulernability.

I did like the critique of the Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability triad vulnerability

this analysis generally assumes an abstract “attacker,” perhaps some ill-meaning basement-dwelling hacker. The reality is that when it comes to telecommunications infrastructure, these attackers are often nation-state actors—organized and well funded, and specialized in attacking “hard targets.
Even if I resent the stereotype - basement conversions are bloody expensive, however much I would like my own personal batcave.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top