3 ms·

There is always a risk from buying technology from suppliers you have no full control over. This is Brexit. The UK is trying not to depend on the EU too much e

There is always a risk from buying technology from suppliers you have no full control over. This is Brexit. The UK is trying not to depend on the EU too much either and are actively trying to diversify.

notzuck 8y ago
Are you claiming security policy is being driven by a need to pull back from the EU? Who do you know at GCHQ?
- entity345 8y ago
  I am claiming that the UK has to be realistic. The whole security story around Huawei is largely overblown and driven by the US's increasing realisation that they won't be the undisputed top dog for long. The UK is not in that situation. They are a medium power leaving the largest trading bloc in the world and they need China. As such they need to be realistic when assessing risk and have a pragmatic approach.
  - roca 8y ago
    Overblown? Does anyone seriously believe that if Xi Jinping orders Huawei to deploy a backdoor, they will resist?
    - entity345 8y ago
      As I mentioned in another comment this is a risk that exists for every supplier that you haven't got full control over. As someone else further mentioned, the UK has setup an evaluation centre with Huawei where GCHQ experts check Huawei products before deployment. Again, let's not pretend that the the US are in good faith here even if security should of course always be considered. This is an obvious FUD campaign to slow the rise of a new superpower and of a major competitor in a sensitive industry.
      - creato 8y ago
        > As someone else further mentioned, the UK has setup an evaluation centre with Huawei where GCHQ experts check Huawei products before deployment. This betrays an incredible lack of foresight. Denying updates to products to evaluate in the first place is itself a point of serious potential vulnerability. > Again, let's not pretend that the the US are in good faith here even if security should of course always be considered. This is an obvious FUD campaign to slow the rise of a new superpower and of a major competitor in a sensitive industry. You're making this about the US when it doesn't have to be. That was the point of my comment: the UK has options that don't have anything to do with the US or China. I cannot believe that you genuinely view the risks of dealing with Sweden (Ericsson) or Finland (Nokia) and China for such sensitive infrastructure as comparable. I must have missed the Swedish hacking campaign of companies and governments worldwide for the last 10 years...
        entity345 8y ago
        > This betrays an incredible lack of foresight. No, this is an agreement to build an acceptable way forward for both sides by addressing issues (real or perceived). > You're making this about the US when it doesn't have to be. The whole campaign against Huawei has been launched and is led by the US. This is where the noise comes from and this has made dealing with China more difficult for the UK because of that noise in the media.
      - roca 8y ago
        It's disingenuous to pretend there's no difference between suppliers operating under the Chinese dictatorship and suppliers operating in Western countries with strong rule-of-law traditions. Even National Security Letters in the USA can be challenged in court. It also matters what you think of the governments that are potentially exerting control. China is way down the list of governments I'd like to have access to critical infrastructure. I can't tell what HCSEC thinks they're doing. Plenty of security research shows that in reality skilled engineers can plant backdoors no-one can find, especially at the hardware level. Apparently most HCSEC staff are Huawei employees so they don't exactly have an incentive to find backdoors. It sounds like a joke.

notzuck 8y ago

Are you claiming security policy is being driven by a need to pull back from the EU? Who do you know at GCHQ?

entity345 8y ago
I am claiming that the UK has to be realistic. The whole security story around Huawei is largely overblown and driven by the US's increasing realisation that they won't be the undisputed top dog for long. The UK is not in that situation. They are a medium power leaving the largest trading bloc in the world and they need China. As such they need to be realistic when assessing risk and have a pragmatic approach.
- roca 8y ago
  Overblown? Does anyone seriously believe that if Xi Jinping orders Huawei to deploy a backdoor, they will resist?
  - entity345 8y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment this is a risk that exists for every supplier that you haven't got full control over. As someone else further mentioned, the UK has setup an evaluation centre with Huawei where GCHQ experts check Huawei products before deployment. Again, let's not pretend that the the US are in good faith here even if security should of course always be considered. This is an obvious FUD campaign to slow the rise of a new superpower and of a major competitor in a sensitive industry.
    - creato 8y ago
      > As someone else further mentioned, the UK has setup an evaluation centre with Huawei where GCHQ experts check Huawei products before deployment. This betrays an incredible lack of foresight. Denying updates to products to evaluate in the first place is itself a point of serious potential vulnerability. > Again, let's not pretend that the the US are in good faith here even if security should of course always be considered. This is an obvious FUD campaign to slow the rise of a new superpower and of a major competitor in a sensitive industry. You're making this about the US when it doesn't have to be. That was the point of my comment: the UK has options that don't have anything to do with the US or China. I cannot believe that you genuinely view the risks of dealing with Sweden (Ericsson) or Finland (Nokia) and China for such sensitive infrastructure as comparable. I must have missed the Swedish hacking campaign of companies and governments worldwide for the last 10 years...
      - entity345 8y ago
        > This betrays an incredible lack of foresight. No, this is an agreement to build an acceptable way forward for both sides by addressing issues (real or perceived). > You're making this about the US when it doesn't have to be. The whole campaign against Huawei has been launched and is led by the US. This is where the noise comes from and this has made dealing with China more difficult for the UK because of that noise in the media.
    - roca 8y ago
      It's disingenuous to pretend there's no difference between suppliers operating under the Chinese dictatorship and suppliers operating in Western countries with strong rule-of-law traditions. Even National Security Letters in the USA can be challenged in court. It also matters what you think of the governments that are potentially exerting control. China is way down the list of governments I'd like to have access to critical infrastructure. I can't tell what HCSEC thinks they're doing. Plenty of security research shows that in reality skilled engineers can plant backdoors no-one can find, especially at the hardware level. Apparently most HCSEC staff are Huawei employees so they don't exactly have an incentive to find backdoors. It sounds like a joke.