
Britain knows it’s selling out its national security to Huawei - VieEnCode
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/boris-johnson-britain-knows-its-selling-out-its-national-security-to-huawei/
======
Nokinside
You can control the security risk without following US lead.

US and Five Eyes countries following US are banning Huawei for strategic
reasons, not for technical reasons. Telecom infrastructure is strategic
industry and US want's to prevent Chinese getting ahead. US can't compete
directly because US is out from 4G/LTE/5G game and US based companies are only
component providers (Qualcomm and others).

>but nevertheless permitted it to compete for up to 35 percent market share in
the country’s access network—that is, its antennae and similar equipment.

There is magical thinking involved if someone thinks that base stations alone
completely break national security. Mobile networks involve huge number of
components. The components and the software in the mobile core network and
services pose more risk than base stations. Interfaces are standardized and
you can buy different components from different vendors.

European network operators (especially if they have government contracts) have
silently limited what they buy from Huawei. Base stations and most hardware is
OK. Operating services, network control, visitor and location registers,
mobile switching centers, network monitoring, and rest of the software that
deals with the core network can be bought from others. Many EU countries just
"happen" to have one or two carriers with strategically shielded core networks
without formally banning Huawei.

~~~
kube-system
> US and Five Eyes countries following US are banning Huawei for strategic
> reasons, not for technical reasons. Telecom infrastructure is strategic
> industry and US want's to prevent Chinese getting ahead.

Despite the current president's personal crusades, this is _not_ about US
protectionism. Companies in the US wouldn't benefit from a ban on Huawei
equipment anyway, it would be Finland and Sweden who do.

Supply chain trust has always been a primary concern of _any kind_ of critical
resource/infrastructure defensive strategy. Every time a country relies on
another for a critical ongoing need, it introduces an inherent power imbalance
that the supplying country can use as a leverage. This kind of stuff is
centuries-old geopolitical strategy, and it's still in the news every day when
we're talking about energy, food, minerals, etc. (e.g. Russian pipelines) Why
is communications infrastructure any different? It's not.

~~~
anticensor
Do you mean NOKIA and Ericsson?

~~~
freyir
Yes, those are the only cellular infrastructure companies besides Huawei.
There was Alcatel-Lucent, but Nokia bought them a while back.

~~~
abainbridge
There's an emerging trend of service providers trying to virtualize their core
network. Rakuten in Japan is a leading example.

"They have assembled a small army of suppliers to build a virtualized network
built on x86 hardware. ... Rakuten has no dedicated hardware except in its
antennas, ensuring the upgrade to 5G will be straightforward. ... Chief
Architecture Officer Tareq Amin said the network has "virtualized everything,"
including radio access, core, transport, IP, billing and operational support
systems."

I'm not sure who this army of suppliers is though.

------
Zenst
Whatever provider of 5G hardware the UK picked - it was always going to be
open to foreign power abuse.

What they have done is take all three offerings and limit what percentage of
the market they can have - effectively having the country 5G networks provided
by a three supplies all having an equal amount of kit in the field.

They are also taking the approach of presuming it is potential bad-actor and
proactively planning around that.

So a bit like putting an IDS/Firewall in place before you realise you need
one, you could say.

Is it ideal - nope, but the lack of local offering make that impossible
anyhow. So plan for the worst and hope for the best, is not a bad plan of
action in this instance.

~~~
skrebbel
> Whatever provider of 5G hardware the UK picked - it was always going to be
> open to foreign power abuse.

Wait, you think the Swedish secret service is going to coerce Ericsson into
installing backdoors that let them spy in the UK?

I mean, sure, possible, but a bit further fetched than China doing exactly
that, no?

~~~
carlmr
Maybe the Swedes backdoored the Beam VM and are laughing now. Since everybody
in Telecom uses it.

~~~
9q9
For what it's worth, backdoors have been discovered in Ericsson switches, see
[1], it's fascinating reading. It's unclear who put them there. Wikipedia [2]
alleges that the US embassy in Athens was behind the telephone intercepts.
Naturally, Wikipedia is _n o t_ a reliable source in such matters.

I used to work in telecoms myself about 20 years ago, and at least at the
time, much of infrastructure was insanely insecure -- I could have backdoored
much of the internet's backbone as a lone programmer had I wanted to: our
software was used by most big telcos. Not once was our code audited (at least
openly). I very much hope that security is taken more seriously now.

[1] V. Prevelakis, D. Spinellis, The Athens Affair.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070704193410/http://www.spectr...](https://web.archive.org/web/20070704193410/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul07/5280)
The pdf is also available through Spinellis' Google Scholar page.

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%80%9305)

~~~
jlgaddis
> _I very much hope that security is taken more seriously now._

I've got some bad news ...

------
amaccuish
As someone who works in retail, a large number of the UK population support
this decision, as they also buy Huawei phones. Huawei phones are incredibly
popular and customers tell me they're very angry at the current anti-
Huawei/China feeling at the moment. For those who don't have a lot of money,
they really appreciate that Huawei makes phones for all kinds of incomes, not
just £40,000+ a year. A lot of them (rightly imho) perceive the US action
against Huawei to be out of fear that the US may not be topdog in an area of
technology.

>If the British government was truly concerned about market failures, it would
not reward Huawei, which profits from unfair support by Chinese state
capitalism, giving it advantages over its competitors from market economies.

Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies
that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the
disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete
on its own merits.

~~~
w7
> Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies
> that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the
> disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it
> compete on its own merits.

Is this a criticism of the West or China? Because China does this currently
with _multiple_ Western companies.

------
nickdothutton
If the UK is limiting a vendor because it believes it to be malign, or more
likely to be malign, or more susceptible to being turned malign by its
Government, then limiting it to 30% or 3% isn’t going to help much. One fox in
the henhouse is enough.

As for being able to mitigate a “man in the vendor”, whether the “man” is
acting according to the vendor or whether the vendor themselves have been
coercively controlled or infiltrated matters very little. Mobile operators
generally don't even run their own networks today, they outsource the
management of the critical platforms to the vendors themselves who often
finance the deal too.

UK dropped the ball on this, but it dropped it 10-20 years ago, and now this
kind of problem is going to keep coming up again and again.

Some of you might enjoy this examination I made of the topic and the context
for all this.
[https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/](https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/)

~~~
gnfargbl
From the NCSC themselves:

 _The cap at 35% ensures the UK will not become nationally dependent on a high
risk vendor while retaining competition in the market and allowing operators
to continue to use two Radio Access Network (RAN) vendors._

In other words, the limit isn’t there to mitigate the risk of Huawei being
malign (there are other mitigations in place for that risk, such as keeping
them away from sensitive network functions). The limit is there to prevent the
operator from becoming entirely beholden to Huawei.

~~~
iso1631
In general no single supplier should provide more than 35% of any source.
Anyone beholden to a single supplier is opening themselves up to be ripped off
at best.

Problems of course come when suppliers merge. I have contracts with 8
different supplier for my business, one goes bust, or jacks up prices, and I
simply increase supplies of the other 7.

Then those 8 companies start merging, and before long you're left with a
single supplier, or at best a cartel.

------
OscarTheGrinch
Can't we just buy Chinese stuff... and copy it?

I'm only half joking. History teaches us that any technological shortfall can
be remedied fairly quickly if you have a clear priority and the audacity to
steal.

5G doesn't require imploding plutonium.

~~~
johnchristopher
> 5G doesn't require imploding plutonium.

Reading HN, I was under the impression that we didn't need 5G anyway (except
for people streaming videos in stadium, which I haven't really understood why
yet).

~~~
carlmr
I can stream Netflix on my 25mbit/s. For personal use I absolutely don't care
about 5G. For professional use it might give me better picture quality when I
remote into work, but I think my work's VPN server is more of a bottleneck
currently.

~~~
Reason077
> _”I can stream Netflix on my 25mbit /s. For personal use I absolutely don't
> care about 5G.”_

I can stream at 25 Mbps just fine on 4G+/LTE too. At off-peak times. I’ve even
seen it hit 70, 80, 90 Mbps occasionally.

The problem happens at _peak_ times, usually starting around 6pm, when the
network slows to a crawl and I can’t stream things reliably despite having 5/5
signal strength, because my carrier (Three UK) has sold too many cheap
unlimited data plans and their 4G network is highly congested.

5G is needed because it greatly improves the data carrying capacity of given
blocks of spectrum, meaning more users and higher speeds in areas that
currently suffer capacity constraints.

And honestly, 5G’s 200 Mbit+ speeds would just be nice to have to speed up
things like downloading multi-GB OS updates and the like.

~~~
oarsinsync
That might be less to do with your carrier's cellular edge capacity (are you
in a densely populated area with lots of people on the same cell station as
you?) and more to do with your carrier's intenet edge capacity (3 has lots of
customers using a lot of internet)

If it's the former, 5G helps you. If it's the latter, 5G makes zero difference
to you.

~~~
Reason077
Yes, I can’t say for sure but I assume it’s the former. It’s certainly a dense
area (Central London) and there are certainly many people around here with 3
unlimited data plans.

If I monitor my router’s status page I can see it start to bounce between
several different Cell IDs when the congestion hits, and the SINR drops to low
single digits (from 16-20dB when it’s fastest).

In any case, as I understand it, backhaul upgrades will be a part of 3’s 5G
rollout anyway.

------
trimbo
This is a really good article, worth reading all the way through. For me, this
was the line that sums it up:

> After Brexit, London sees itself as dependent on Beijing’s goodwill.

~~~
trhway
Having more freedom to adjust regulations and needing new business/investments
while still being part of Europe post-Brexit Britain can possibly find its
future as the Chinese base and tunnel into Europe .

------
gnfargbl
There’s a lot of speculation in the comments here around exactly what the UK
is or isn’t doing, and why. The NCSC’s Technical Director has laid it out in
detail: [https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-future-of-telecoms-
in-...](https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-future-of-telecoms-in-the-uk).
The linked article points to the blog post, but then largely ignores the
points it makes.

------
swiley
Telecom equipment should be free as in freedom if we’re going to give it
exclusive use of portions of the spectrum. Proprietary wireless equipment is
harmful surf-like enslavement of the people.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _telecom equipment should be free as in freedom_

The author agrees with you:

“The U.K., for example, could force providers to work with open coding
standards (“OpenRAN”) that would ensure interoperability between providers,
thus lowering market entry barriers to future market entrants and
disadvantaging Huawei, which has heavily bet on closed proprietary solutions.”

------
silasdavis
Where is the part that explains why using Huawei equipment sells out national
security? I have heard zero satisfying arguments. What is the proposed attack?
How does it not apply to the penetration of Chinese made chips everywhere. Why
should we trust US made chips and their companies' obligations to US national
security apparatus any more? Or other countries? If strong trust in certain
hardware is the requirement for some level of trust in the network then I
think we are already lost.

------
oxfordmale
The truth is that if China wants to hack the UK, it will. It might possibly be
easier when 5G is built on Huawei equipment, however, other suppliers will
inadvertentlg introduce security weaknesses which can be exploited by China as
well.

------
badrabbit
From what I understand, using Ericcson(european) instead would delay it by
around a year and £4B.

It is guaranteed the CCP will wage information warfare against the UK in the
future. If there's a global war, China is the most powerful country based on
current politics that will be the UK's adversary. Ability to limit or
interfere with public communicarion infrasructure is an invaluable war-time
advantage.

For those that say this is just edge gear, I say that makes it even worse.
Redundancy and access control is easier at the core than at the edge which
lives in the field and direcrly interfaces with possibly hostile end devices.
Even just a dumb antenna can be built in a way that makes it easier tl cripple
or help with jamming/DOS.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Thanks, you triggered an interesting thought: is the U.K. really likely to be
an adversary of China? Based on reading James Rickard’s Aftermath and also
Gaft Luft’s and Anne Klein’s De-Dollarization, I can list out how different
the UK’s and the USA’s situations are re: China:

China and Russia (with many smaller countries who are growing more resentful
of the advantage we get having the dollar as the world reserve currency) are
actively trying to undermine the dollar (let’s hope they fail, or that it
takes a long time!) but they probably view the U.K. as a trading partner and
as much as possible be cordial with.

England is done with being the world mono polar superpower so they don’t show
up strategically as a real adversary.

For financial and ego reasons, the USA is trying to hold on to its status
(although by over using tariffs and sanctions, we are being incredibly clumsy
- we need to get our act together!)

~~~
badrabbit
UK is the US's closest ally,it will likely be something about taiwan,HK or
elswhere outside mainland. And it will probably slowly escalate if I had to
guess to where in one shape or form China attacks SK ,US military bases,hawaii
or western US as a retaliation ,after which the UK will be presurred to join
,except the public would be divided and that's when comms will have issues: is
it US or China hacking brits?

China does not care for the west as a trading partner much more than as a
stepping stone to reach elsewhere. The west uses economic advantages to arm
twist domestic Chinese policy. If they have their grip on Africa, Asia and S.
America who cares about the fading west?

And the USA right now is vital for continued world peace and stability as a
superpower. There many many nations that owe their geopolitical stability
right now to the US being the sole super power.

China has sheer volume but being maybe a third at most their population size
the US dominates many things still. Technologically they're still behind in
military appllications. The US woud squash China in a heartbeat in both
conventional and Nuke warfare. And you have to undetstand how much SK and
Japan (both important UK allies btw) are important to the US. Their loss too
China will happen only after losing WW3. These are one ot many reasons why
both China and Russia are working hard to dismantle the US and UK from the
inside out as well as sow discord between them. UK fought with US in both Iraq
and Afghanistan!!! Many brits died in America's wars already.

------
mFixman
Dumb question: why is Huawei the only available provider of 5G technology? Are
all other companies too far away?

~~~
ddeck
They are not. From the article:

 _> Yet Europe is home to two of the world’s leading vendors, Ericsson and
Nokia; Samsung offers yet another alternative from a trustworthy democracy._

~~~
gabaix
Why are there no US vendors?

It is rare to see a cutting-edge sector without the US.

~~~
sangnoir
Cisco and Motorola are not interested in this market, and Lucent is no longer
American. To answer your question: maximizing shareholder value is why there
are no US vendors (that in turn, might be because of lack of competition
behavior between Verizon and AT&T leading to lowered investment in
infrastructure)

------
AsyncAwait
Serious question, as an European why would I trust say Cisco more than Huawei?

~~~
deltron3030
Surrounding culture the company is embedded in. As an European I'd always
favor an US company over a Chinese one that's linked to a dictatorship.

~~~
AsyncAwait
I just saw this story regarding Afghanistan:

[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/28/admission-
colos...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/28/admission-colossal-
failure-us-dropped-record-number-bombs-afghanistan-2019)

Were any of the war criminals that lied us into Iraq prosecuted? Nope. Did the
NSA modify Cisco routers and tap the phones of its EU allies? Yes.

Is Guantanamo Bay still open? Did the U.S. just commit an international crime
by assassinating a top Iranian diplomat?

Am asking all these questions, because while the U.S. is still better
domestically, (be it with huge cracks, even on that front), I'd say that
internationally it isn't as clear cut as I'd once have agreed with you it is.

~~~
deltron3030
But it wont get any better if people keep supporting dictatorships.
Dictatorships are like cheatcodes for economic growth, countries like China
can move much faster because of that, and put pressure on other countries that
aren't dictatorships to become more dictatorship like to be able to keep up.
You make things worse in your own country by supporting them and giving them
even more power.

~~~
AsyncAwait
You know there's a 3rd option right?

I do not support China, but neither do I 'support' the U.S. That's a false
choice.

I have a bit more nuanced view of things. For example I do not support the
government of Iran, but I also think the U.S. does not have any right to
vilify it 24/7 like it does, as long as they're so closely buddy, buddy with
Saudi Arabia, since Iran is, for all its faults, more democratic than KSA is.

So if anything, I'd support the EU becoming more independent of U.S. influence
and providing a proper counter-balance on the international stage to both the
U.S. and China.

------
tyingq
I imagine the UK weighs Huawei equipment with potential Chinese introduced
backdoors vs Cisco equipment with potential US introduced backdoors. Probably
cases exist where Huawei is the safer choice. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-
implant/)

Feels like there's a niche market for a UK, French, German, Australian, etc,
line of equipment.

~~~
ethanbond
This is only true if you naively believe that being compromised by the US
carries even remotely similar risk to being compromised by the CCP.

One key difference: China is an adversary to the US and UK. The US is not an
adversary to the UK. This strategic relativism is tired and indefensible in
any version of reality.

~~~
tyingq
_" The US is not an adversary to the ...UK."_

Not generally, but there are cases where they are. Ask Assange, for example.
Surely the UK has information they would rather not share with the US in some
cases.

~~~
ethanbond
Not tactically aligned 100% of the time != an adversary.

To act otherwise - or to act like China ought to enjoy a similar relationship
- is downright dangerous in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions.

~~~
tyingq
That just sounds very black and white to me. Why would the UK blindly follow
the US in all cases? Surely there's room for their own interests.

~~~
ethanbond
I don’t believe I proposed that the UK “blindly follow” the US, nor did I even
say it’s a-okay that the US might engage in espionage against allies. I said
that the US-UK relationship is absolutely nothing like the UK-CCP
relationship, and therefore US efforts to project power are in no way
comparable to Chinese efforts (as far as the UK is concerned).

However, if you really want an answer, there are two reasons that the UK ought
to align itself with the US (and vice versa). Those two reasons are Russia and
China. We are fortunate to be living in an era of widespread peace, but that
is not guaranteed indefinitely. Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break
out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so),
any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world
ought to be on the side of the US/UK.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
> US efforts to project power are in no way comparable to Chinese efforts (as
> far as the UK is concerned).

The UK conducts extensive trade with both the US and China, so the potential
for trade disputes with either country is there. At the moment, I think it's
fair to say that a major trade dispute with the US is more likely than a trade
dispute with China.

> Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since
> tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum
> of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of
> the US/UK.

Whatever you think of China, you can't claim that it's been more belligerent
than the US in the past several decades. Blindly backing the US and giving in
to its demands (backed by sanctions against its own allies, as in the case of
Germany) to cut off ties with China and Russia might not be the best way to
promote global peace.

~~~
ethanbond
It seems like you’re missing my point. A trade dispute with China (or the US)
is not the primary risk we should have in mind when thinking about this.

Becoming technologically dependent upon China puts the western world at
strategic risk, which we have every reason to believe China will eventually
cash in on when the time is right. When they cash in on it, it will _not_ be
for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless
and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most
powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over. I do not believe that
China is belligerent. I _know_ that it is ideologically opposed to liberal
democracy. It’s apparently hard for many westerners to believe that there are
those who truly do not believe in democratic ideals, but there are and they
are growing in power and ambition.

It is naive to believe that our current state of affairs is guaranteed and one
need only worry about maximizing the economic prosperity of a society that
they see as guaranteed to be democratic. Do you think that millions of people
died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes? Or was there a more substantial
threat that was being addressed? Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it
always be so?

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
> When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal
> democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American
> policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of
> liberal democracy the world over.

I don't see any evidence of that.

> I _know_ that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy.

The Chinese government doesn't care about the existence or nonexistence of
liberal democracy in the UK, US, or really anywhere other than in China
itself. They're not out to destroy democracy in the UK. They care about their
interests, which in regards to the UK are mostly economic.

> Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade
> regimes?

The CCP fought on the same side as the US and UK in WWII.

> Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?

It was largely eradicated for a long time, though the far right is making a
comeback in many countries. The major threat I see now, however, is the
increasing conflict between the US and China, and the extreme recklessness of
American foreign policy.

------
kmlx
isn't huawei already powering every country's 4g/lte offering?

~~~
thesimon
Yes and it's not that 5G is completely different from 4G anyway. Very much
hyped up.

~~~
otoburb
>> _Yes and it 's not that 5G is completely different from 4G anyway. Very
much hyped up._

5G RAN (access) is very different.

I'd agree that 5G Core not be that different at the most abstract levels
compared to 4G LTE packet core, but the reality on the ground is that they are
still sufficiently different enough that network operators are using 5G as a
strong reason to re-evaluate suppliers and put major network components up for
tender.

------
golemotron
Britain is sending a signal to the US that is time to negotiate trade.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I don’t thank anyone anywhere disagrees that now is the time for UK and US to
work on trade. You could be the most strict “remainer” there is and have to
accept this - regardless of 5G.

------
gumby
> London sees itself as dependent on Beijing’s goodwill.

If only Britan could join together with others perhaps in a supra-national
group of nations so that collectively they'd have more strength to resist
large economies like China's.

------
tim333
I would have thought for any communications that you are worried about the
security off you'd encrypt them with https or similar. I've never really given
thought as to whether there is a chinese bit of equipment in the chain of not
when I do a bank transfer or such like and along those lines, as a brit I'm
not that worried that some bit of the network may have a back door from Huawei
or whoever. Is this really a problem?

------
niyikiza
It all really comes down to being the cheapest option. Huawei has no monopoly
on 5G technology. It just has the means (and government support) to make big
R&D investments.

This Twitter thread discussed that point of a view a few days
ago:[https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360?s...](https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360?s=19)

------
siavosh
I’m wondering if this is a negotiation tactic post Brexit as they’re about to
enter trade negotiations with the US. Just a bluff bargaining chip to concede.

~~~
mattrp
I think it’s not a neogiting tactic but an indicator that post-Brexit the UK
will permanently seek to increase open trade with all parties. I also think in
a zero trust environment one has to assume everything is compromised and deal
accordingly. Finally I think UK has stronger ties than its peers due to its
history in Hong Kong and it will seek to leverage that as the belt and road
initiative develops to ensure it is not left out by a revengeful EU.

~~~
siavosh
I would imagine the UK would like to have its cake and eat it too, but the US
will make them choose.

------
hogFeast
I don't know whether this is technologically sound but a few things to bear in
mind:

* Before they took this decision, the govt consulted with the UK's Cyber Security Centre (these guys are not meek civil servants...GCHQ end up owning every Home Secretary, they are powerful).

* The distinction they made was between allowing Huawei into the "core" part of the UK's networks.

* Because Huawei won't provide "core" infrastructure, there is no risk.

Tbh, I am not an expert but this sounded very wrong to me. 5G is going to
require building out a dense blanket of receivers...if you let them do this,
then they are in...it doesn't matter.

The suggestion was that sensitive data is only carried through certain
infrastructure...I don't really buy this because it doesn't really protect 5G
which is obviously a component of the network anyway, and I don't really
believe that there is some kind of parallel internet out there for GCHQ
only...but I don't know.

To me, this sounded a lot like cheapness. The issue with lack of competition
was brought up in the Parliamentary debate...that is a problem that exists but
the way to solve that is not to buy equipment from unsafe providers (the
Foreign Secretary seemed to accept btw, that Huawei was controlled by the
Chinese govt).

------
unethical_ban
Here's my biggest question of the whole thing:

    
    
      * Can governments not inspect the hardware themselves to see if there are physical backdoors?
    
      * Could they not, as a precondition for any provider, demand to see the source code of the radios?
    
      * If the ISPs tunnel the backbone traffic combined with more/most Internet traffic being secured anyway, 
     wouldn't that minimize data leaks?
    
      * If you admit that the previous point isn't valid because of metadata concerns, doesn't that invalidate the US
     national security establishment's position on metadata towards the public? 
     They have previously scoffed at such concerns ("It's only a phone number") but now it matters.
    
      * Wouldn't rogue equipment exfiltrating data be rather obvious?

~~~
matthewheath
For points 1 and 2 at least, the UK has the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation
Centre where GCHQ can inspect all Huawei hardware as well as the source code,
although it is run by former Huawei employees (overseen by GCHQ) so its
independence is questionable.

~~~
hardlianotion
I believe the centre cannot satisfy itself that the code they inspect is the
code that is built into the hardware.

~~~
gnfargbl
Yes.

 _...it is not possible to be confident that the source code examined by HCSEC
is precisely that used to build the binaries running in the UK networks._

\--
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790270/HCSEC_OversightBoardReport-2019.pdf)

------
Scarbutt
Good for Britain for standing on its own and not letting itself being used as
another puppet in the economic war between U.S. and China.

~~~
Covzire
Something tells me you don't do business is China. There is no material
difference between Huawei and the Chinese Government.

~~~
kmlx
> There is no material difference between Huawei and the Chinese Government.

this is false.

~~~
HugoHobling
> There is no material difference between Cisco and the United States
> government.

Agree?

Edit: This isn’t intended as a rude or rhetorical question. I’m really
interested in your answer.

------
avocado4
Chinese government criticized UK's recent decision.

\- hard cap on the market share (35%)

\- no Huawei parts in core part of network

\- no Huawei in sensitive locations (military, energy)

\- Huawei declared as the only provider that poses national security to the UK

It's not a complete ban but it sure is a blow to Huawei who has been expanding
globally unopposed in the past decade.

------
aldoushuxley001
Yup, and as a Canadian the worst part about this is it gives the government
here an easy out to sell out our own national security, because we're just
followng Britain's lead after all. They already broke up the Five Eyes.

~~~
microcolonel
In my experience, our Canadian government sells us out to China even more
readily than the UK government has; but at least we're not Australia, which is
(no joke) basically on the edge of becoming a dependent territory of the PRC.
To me, as a dual citizen, it is mystifying that the U.S. is allowing this to
happen; if the PRC compromises half of the commonwealth, that seems like a
serious threat to the United States, and to human rights as a concept and
reality.

~~~
aldoushuxley001
I agree, but I had hope the Liberals would be under such intense pressure to
ban Huawei that they’d be forced to, politically.

Eg With the liberals being just a minority, the majority of the Canadian
parliament got together and recently passed legislation for and subsequently
set up a committee to review Canada-China relations, on the backdrop of China
holding our citizens hostage and extraordinary Chinese intervention into
Canadian governments (federal, provincial and municipal).

But realistically I know better than to bet against a Trudeau selling out
Canada.

