Huawei - Yeeha or Boohoo or to who do you kowtow to? Bompy™

surrey_commuter

bompington said:

mr_goo said:

I was speaking to someone this week who is UK manager for a European CCTV manufacturer. UK Gov has installed Chinese manufacturered CCTV Security and monitoring systems into our most sensitive establishments. The bids were uncompetitive as these companies (Hikvision) are subsidised, supported and part owned by Chinese Gov.
Most worryingly these systems have been proved to be accessible from outside said secure environments.

Ergo the Chinese government now have ability to see inside GCHQ and DSTL.

Worrying if true. However, I would give more weight to what the management at GCHQ think is right to do than a salesman for a rival company

That was very gentle

Pross

It's a shame the likes of GCHQ don't have experts in cyber security who could have picked up on this. They need to employ a bloke down the pub so they can keep abreast of such threats to national security.

mr_goo

My contact is not just a salesman. He is more of a consultant and has worked with HM Gov since the 80s on various security monitoring systems. The fact he is working for a manufacturer supplying said equipment is not the argument.
His concern is that they know the UK have been susceptible to cheap deals from China. And it does put the UK security at risk.
His biggest contracts are currently in Rep of Ireland where they wouldn't touch Chinese security equipment with a 10ft barge pole.

elbowloh

Pross said:

It's a shame the likes of GCHQ don't have experts in cyber security who could have picked up on this. They need to employ a bloke down the pub so they can keep abreast of such threats to national security.

I'm very doubtful that GCHQ would have allowed this. I'm skeptical of this story.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh said:

Pross said:

It's a shame the likes of GCHQ don't have experts in cyber security who could have picked up on this. They need to employ a bloke down the pub so they can keep abreast of such threats to national security.

I'm very doubtful that GCHQ would have allowed this. I'm skeptical of this story.

You are right, it is totally ludicrous, they would need to have somebody in every pub. Surely far easier to hang out on online forums or just hack into Goo's emails

mr_goo

awavey

mr_goo said:

My contact is not just a salesman. He is more of a consultant and has worked with HM Gov since the 80s on various security monitoring systems. The fact he is working for a manufacturer supplying said equipment is not the argument.
His concern is that they know the UK have been susceptible to cheap deals from China. And it does put the UK security at risk.
His biggest contracts are currently in Rep of Ireland where they wouldn't touch Chinese security equipment with a 10ft barge pole.

Presumably he speaks in the past tense of having worked in government security consulting, because he cant keep his yap shut about doing it

mr_goo

Still consulting.

pinno

Bye bye Huawei.

The worm turned.

Pross

It would be interesting to know why it's now a security issues when it wasn't before i.e. is it that they ignored the security advice initially because they needed China or are they overruling the advice now because they've decided to be good Trump poodles after all? I don't see that the kit has somehow been found to have security risks that weren't there 6 months ago.

pinno

'Trump poodles'?

You mean, we're not allowed to show concern for our former colony or the seemingly unlimited power of China?

Pross

pinno said:

'Trump poodles'?

You mean, we're not allowed to show concern for our former colony or the seemingly unlimited power of China?

You really think that's made a difference rather than continuing pressure from the Yanks not to use Chinese suppliers? If it was the case and the Government cited it as a reason I think they would earn some respect but they're claiming it's due to security concerns despite having said 6 months ago that security wasn't an issue.

surrey_commuter

pinno said:

'Trump poodles'?

You mean, we're not allowed to show concern for our former colony or the seemingly unlimited power of China?

Would you like to buy a bridge?

pinno

Holy Moly.

China has seemingly unlimited power.
Do you really want a superpower that doesn't give a monkeys regarding human rights, democratic rights, massive environmental impact, poaching, coal fired power stations, not signing up to the Kyoto or Paris agreement etc, having access to UK communication?
Now, I don't think for a moment that the move is a moral one. I don't think there are many governments globally who make large moral choices in international relationships/commerce but China has to be challenged or they will run rampant (if they aren't already doing so).
The only power and influence we can exert on China is trade choices.

The new world order:
The mafioso Putin at the head of a Russian state intent on (flexing it's muscles, killing adversaries on foreign shores) indefinitely.
The US in decline, headed by a nutcase. The US (no matter what President) is socially fabricated.
China - huge global footprint, answerable to no one.
European Union. Soon to loose one of it's larger members. Weakened.

Pross

pinno said:

Holy Moly.

China has seemingly unlimited power.
Do you really want a superpower that doesn't give a monkeys regarding human rights, democratic rights, massive environmental impact, poaching, coal fired power stations, not signing up to the Kyoto or Paris agreement etc, having access to UK communication?
Now, I don't think for a moment that the move is a moral one. I don't think there are many governments globally who make large moral choices in international relationships/commerce but China has to be challenged or they will run rampant (if they aren't already doing so).
The only power and influence we can exert on China is trade choices.

The new world order:
The mafioso Putin at the head of a Russian state intent on (flexing it's muscles, killing adversaries on foreign shores) indefinitely.
The US in decline, headed by a nutcase. The US (no matter what President) is socially fabricated.
China - huge global footprint, answerable to no one.
European Union. Soon to loose one of it's larger members. Weakened.

I'm still not sure what that has to do with the Government making a massive U turn on a decision they took 6 months ago though. What, of the points you've listed above, exists now that didn't back then? The only conclusion I can make is that the pressure from the US to get rid of Huawei has become greater than the pressure from China to use them. We're like the wimpy kid at school with two bullies wanting our lunch money and trying to decide which one will give us the biggest kicking if they don't have it. I'm struggling to see how we can hold power over China using trade, the balance is well and truly in their favour.

pblakeney

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

ballysmate

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

TheBigBean

I think I read somewhere, the reason for the change is that the sanctions on China now mean the intelligence community is no longer sure it can be done safely as Huawei will need to buy some components from elsewhere.

Pross

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

ballysmate

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

No. Blakey implied that the EU would be a superstate.
If it were to be only a trading bloc, I suspect we would be staying.

Pross

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

No. Blakey implied that the EU would be a superstate.
If it were to be only a trading bloc, I suspect we would be staying.

Still better to be inside it than outside it and having to do what they demand though surely?

ballysmate

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

No. Blakey implied that the EU would be a superstate.
If it were to be only a trading bloc, I suspect we would be staying.

Still better to be inside it than outside it and having to do what they demand though surely?

Have no wish to turn this into another Brexit thread and debate the merits of in or out, but my point still stands. An EU superstate was anathema to many.

Pross

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

No. Blakey implied that the EU would be a superstate.
If it were to be only a trading bloc, I suspect we would be staying.

Still better to be inside it than outside it and having to do what they demand though surely?

Have no wish to turn this into another Brexit thread and debate the merits of in or out, but my point still stands. An EU superstate was anathema to many.

I can agree on that, I currently have 995 unread posts on that thread as it has become an unreadable, circular argument.

focuszing723

As much as I like the premise of the EU. It's failures were exposed in dramatic fashion with Covid19. Each Country doing their own thing to support their own type of healthcare system and situation. Brussels were nowhere!

We have American military bases in the UK and work closely with their intelligence services. It stands to reason critical infrastructure would go in that direction if we can't manage it ourselves (which is a shame). I wouldn't class America as a bully to the UK, maybe an elder brother who kicks you in the nads now and again:)

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

It has been forecast that in the (near?) future there will be 3 superstates.
Shame that we are leaving one. (Russia is a superpower but not in terms of trade).

Nail. Head. Why a lot of people voted Leave.

What? So that we are not part of one of the powerful trading blocks and therefore just have to accept being bullied by them? That doesn't make much sense.

No. Blakey implied that the EU would be a superstate.
If it were to be only a trading bloc, I suspect we would be staying.

It's so hard to let these things lie when they're so false. UK literally had a veto on that, but anyway.

rick_chasey

I'm sure I said this upthread but these difficulties will become more common as the UK enters the new post-EU world.

Caught between three powers.

Wheelspinner

TheBigBean said:

I think I read somewhere, the reason for the change is that the sanctions on China now mean the intelligence community is no longer sure it can be done safely as Huawei will need to buy some components from elsewhere.

I think that's the correct answer, also read a similar article implying that since the premier chip-makers (in particular) had been banned (?) from selling stuff to Huawei/China that the equipment they could now provide was no longer within the spec that is required.

Perhaps surprisingly, China does not currently manufacture all the necessary component technology, but assembles it from parts partially sourced from (primarily) US or Euro-owned manufacturers.

Or something like that anyway.

pblakeney