Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when Five Eyes allies haven't?Has the British Monarch ever exercised their right to revoke land “ownership” rights for personal use?Has a British PM ever given a speech with the EU flag alongside the Union Jack?Does the UK still use propaganda?Why does the failure of a Trident test matter when we are going to replace it anyway?Why didn't the UK release its results about Novichok when Russia asked for it?Are there precedents for the EU fining the UK for undervalued Chinese imports?What's Rees-Mogg's constituency, socioeconomically?The Chequers Plan has been rebuffed by the EU, so why is it still “alive”?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?Do any countries use a codified version of the “matter of confidence” of (former) UK tradition?
What does this colon mean? It is not labeling, it is not ternary operator
How can I get people to remember my character's gender?
Appropriate certificate to ask for a fibre installation (ANSI/TIA-568.3-D?)
Why is B♯ higher than C♭ in 31-ET?
Analysis of count data with percentages
Which module had more 'comfort' in terms of living space, the Lunar Module or the Command module?
What is the solution to this metapuzzle from a university puzzling column?
Could the black hole photo be a gravastar?
Has the Hulk always been able to talk?
What are the advantages of luxury car brands like Acura/Lexus over their sibling non-luxury brands Honda/Toyota?
Why didn't the check-in agent recognize my long term visa?
Does a card have a keyword if it has the same effect as said keyword?
How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?
What was the design of the Macintosh II's MMU replacement?
Purpose of のは in this sentence?
Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in Game of Thrones S8E3?
Formating an equation
Building a list of products from the elements in another list
Do you know any research on finding closed forms of recursively-defined sequences?
Can there be a single technologically advanced nation, in a continent full of non-technologically advanced nations?
Independent, post-Brexit Scotland - would there be a hard border with England?
How long would it take for people to notice a mass disappearance?
Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?
Is there an idiom that support the idea that "inflation is bad"?
Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when Five Eyes allies haven't?
Has the British Monarch ever exercised their right to revoke land “ownership” rights for personal use?Has a British PM ever given a speech with the EU flag alongside the Union Jack?Does the UK still use propaganda?Why does the failure of a Trident test matter when we are going to replace it anyway?Why didn't the UK release its results about Novichok when Russia asked for it?Are there precedents for the EU fining the UK for undervalued Chinese imports?What's Rees-Mogg's constituency, socioeconomically?The Chequers Plan has been rebuffed by the EU, so why is it still “alive”?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?Do any countries use a codified version of the “matter of confidence” of (former) UK tradition?
Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when, as far as I know, other members of the Five Eyes and many other Western governments have chosen not to?
Is it a case of a pre/post-Brexit Britain being weaker and therefore needing all the friends it can get, thus not wanting to irritate China, or am I reading too much into it?
united-kingdom intelligence
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
add a comment |
Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when, as far as I know, other members of the Five Eyes and many other Western governments have chosen not to?
Is it a case of a pre/post-Brexit Britain being weaker and therefore needing all the friends it can get, thus not wanting to irritate China, or am I reading too much into it?
united-kingdom intelligence
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when, as far as I know, other members of the Five Eyes and many other Western governments have chosen not to?
Is it a case of a pre/post-Brexit Britain being weaker and therefore needing all the friends it can get, thus not wanting to irritate China, or am I reading too much into it?
united-kingdom intelligence
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
Why has the UK chosen to use Huawei infrastructure when, as far as I know, other members of the Five Eyes and many other Western governments have chosen not to?
Is it a case of a pre/post-Brexit Britain being weaker and therefore needing all the friends it can get, thus not wanting to irritate China, or am I reading too much into it?
united-kingdom intelligence
united-kingdom intelligence
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
asked 5 hours ago
RichRich
1164
1164
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It's difficult to say for sure as the arguments are not made public.
However, we can speculate that it is most likely due to commercial pressure. Huawei dominates the 5G market, being well ahead in terms of shipping hardware and holding many of the key patents. Trying to build a 5G network without Huawei is going to be more expensive and take longer.
That is also speculated to be one of the reasons why the US in particular is objecting to Huawei so strongly. As well as being engaged in a very public trade war with China, US companies have been surpassed on 5G technology and face having to both catch up and licence Huawei patents on the technology they need. Licencing usually involves reciprocal licencing of their patents, or cash.
Since the UK does not have much of a commercial interest in 5G hardware beyond using it, the only incentive to actual ban Huawei hardware is to keep the US happy. The security concerns seem to be fairly weak, with little evidence of backdoors and even less to show that the alternatives are any better. Indeed the only evidence that is available shows that US hardware is systematically attacked by the US government and completely untrustworthy.
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The UK is caught between a rock and a hard place (well worth a listen).
On the one hand side, you have a big trade partner that's made all the more important with the looming Brexit, China, and its national champion, Huawei. The latter is enormous (because of China's own market), reportedly has better and cheaper equipment than the next two big players (Ericson and Nokia), and accuses the US of creating a smokescreen for protectionism.
On the other hand side, you have an important strategic partner that is also made all the more important with the looming Brexit, the US, with its trade war with China, and its security concerns over control of NATO's core 5G network.
The evidence for security issues and potential government overreach is mixed. GCHQ got to review Huawei's source code and found no backdoors. However, they also held no punches and basically spelt out that what they saw was a mess of spaghetti. There's also concern that, while Huawei seems independent today, China could tell it to do a few things down the road -- and the Chinese government isn't one you can really tell no to.
Anyway, there was a recent leak that suggested the UK would allow Huawei to supply 5G network equipment except in core parts of the network. In doing so, May's government would make (already has made...) both sides unhappy. But then, there is no good choice here. If she sides with the US, she'll really piss off China; and vice versa.
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41198%2fwhy-has-the-uk-chosen-to-use-huawei-infrastructure-when-five-eyes-allies-havent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's difficult to say for sure as the arguments are not made public.
However, we can speculate that it is most likely due to commercial pressure. Huawei dominates the 5G market, being well ahead in terms of shipping hardware and holding many of the key patents. Trying to build a 5G network without Huawei is going to be more expensive and take longer.
That is also speculated to be one of the reasons why the US in particular is objecting to Huawei so strongly. As well as being engaged in a very public trade war with China, US companies have been surpassed on 5G technology and face having to both catch up and licence Huawei patents on the technology they need. Licencing usually involves reciprocal licencing of their patents, or cash.
Since the UK does not have much of a commercial interest in 5G hardware beyond using it, the only incentive to actual ban Huawei hardware is to keep the US happy. The security concerns seem to be fairly weak, with little evidence of backdoors and even less to show that the alternatives are any better. Indeed the only evidence that is available shows that US hardware is systematically attacked by the US government and completely untrustworthy.
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It's difficult to say for sure as the arguments are not made public.
However, we can speculate that it is most likely due to commercial pressure. Huawei dominates the 5G market, being well ahead in terms of shipping hardware and holding many of the key patents. Trying to build a 5G network without Huawei is going to be more expensive and take longer.
That is also speculated to be one of the reasons why the US in particular is objecting to Huawei so strongly. As well as being engaged in a very public trade war with China, US companies have been surpassed on 5G technology and face having to both catch up and licence Huawei patents on the technology they need. Licencing usually involves reciprocal licencing of their patents, or cash.
Since the UK does not have much of a commercial interest in 5G hardware beyond using it, the only incentive to actual ban Huawei hardware is to keep the US happy. The security concerns seem to be fairly weak, with little evidence of backdoors and even less to show that the alternatives are any better. Indeed the only evidence that is available shows that US hardware is systematically attacked by the US government and completely untrustworthy.
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It's difficult to say for sure as the arguments are not made public.
However, we can speculate that it is most likely due to commercial pressure. Huawei dominates the 5G market, being well ahead in terms of shipping hardware and holding many of the key patents. Trying to build a 5G network without Huawei is going to be more expensive and take longer.
That is also speculated to be one of the reasons why the US in particular is objecting to Huawei so strongly. As well as being engaged in a very public trade war with China, US companies have been surpassed on 5G technology and face having to both catch up and licence Huawei patents on the technology they need. Licencing usually involves reciprocal licencing of their patents, or cash.
Since the UK does not have much of a commercial interest in 5G hardware beyond using it, the only incentive to actual ban Huawei hardware is to keep the US happy. The security concerns seem to be fairly weak, with little evidence of backdoors and even less to show that the alternatives are any better. Indeed the only evidence that is available shows that US hardware is systematically attacked by the US government and completely untrustworthy.
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
It's difficult to say for sure as the arguments are not made public.
However, we can speculate that it is most likely due to commercial pressure. Huawei dominates the 5G market, being well ahead in terms of shipping hardware and holding many of the key patents. Trying to build a 5G network without Huawei is going to be more expensive and take longer.
That is also speculated to be one of the reasons why the US in particular is objecting to Huawei so strongly. As well as being engaged in a very public trade war with China, US companies have been surpassed on 5G technology and face having to both catch up and licence Huawei patents on the technology they need. Licencing usually involves reciprocal licencing of their patents, or cash.
Since the UK does not have much of a commercial interest in 5G hardware beyond using it, the only incentive to actual ban Huawei hardware is to keep the US happy. The security concerns seem to be fairly weak, with little evidence of backdoors and even less to show that the alternatives are any better. Indeed the only evidence that is available shows that US hardware is systematically attacked by the US government and completely untrustworthy.
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
answered 5 hours ago
useruser
11.5k32845
11.5k32845
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
Fair point about the US, but I would argue it's lot harder for their spy agencies. The US computer industry is dominated by private companies that aren't much closer to the government than rich people in general are, and while the government sometimes has been able to get them to spy or use a flawed cryptographic standard, they usually can't, though they still benefit from knowledge of and proximity to the systems. By contrast, China's major technology companies often are either somewhat nationalized or have close government ties.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
It's also a lot harder to order a company to cooperate with the government in the US.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 if you check the leaked Snowden documents, you can see that the NSA targets, for example, Cisco hardware with zero day exploits. It also intercepts Cisco hardware as it is being shipped to customers, and installs advanced persistent threat backdoors. No cooperation needed.
– user
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's definitely easier for them to do that to US hardware than Chinese hardware. But China has an even broader array of options available: for instance, they may be able to install their backdoors at the factory.
– Obie 2.0
4 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
@Obie2.0 true, although one other point to note is that Huawei does allow customers to inspect their source code and verify that the firmware matches it. They also share schematics so that the hardware can be verified. So it's much harder to sneak malware in there.
– user
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The UK is caught between a rock and a hard place (well worth a listen).
On the one hand side, you have a big trade partner that's made all the more important with the looming Brexit, China, and its national champion, Huawei. The latter is enormous (because of China's own market), reportedly has better and cheaper equipment than the next two big players (Ericson and Nokia), and accuses the US of creating a smokescreen for protectionism.
On the other hand side, you have an important strategic partner that is also made all the more important with the looming Brexit, the US, with its trade war with China, and its security concerns over control of NATO's core 5G network.
The evidence for security issues and potential government overreach is mixed. GCHQ got to review Huawei's source code and found no backdoors. However, they also held no punches and basically spelt out that what they saw was a mess of spaghetti. There's also concern that, while Huawei seems independent today, China could tell it to do a few things down the road -- and the Chinese government isn't one you can really tell no to.
Anyway, there was a recent leak that suggested the UK would allow Huawei to supply 5G network equipment except in core parts of the network. In doing so, May's government would make (already has made...) both sides unhappy. But then, there is no good choice here. If she sides with the US, she'll really piss off China; and vice versa.
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
add a comment |
The UK is caught between a rock and a hard place (well worth a listen).
On the one hand side, you have a big trade partner that's made all the more important with the looming Brexit, China, and its national champion, Huawei. The latter is enormous (because of China's own market), reportedly has better and cheaper equipment than the next two big players (Ericson and Nokia), and accuses the US of creating a smokescreen for protectionism.
On the other hand side, you have an important strategic partner that is also made all the more important with the looming Brexit, the US, with its trade war with China, and its security concerns over control of NATO's core 5G network.
The evidence for security issues and potential government overreach is mixed. GCHQ got to review Huawei's source code and found no backdoors. However, they also held no punches and basically spelt out that what they saw was a mess of spaghetti. There's also concern that, while Huawei seems independent today, China could tell it to do a few things down the road -- and the Chinese government isn't one you can really tell no to.
Anyway, there was a recent leak that suggested the UK would allow Huawei to supply 5G network equipment except in core parts of the network. In doing so, May's government would make (already has made...) both sides unhappy. But then, there is no good choice here. If she sides with the US, she'll really piss off China; and vice versa.
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
add a comment |
The UK is caught between a rock and a hard place (well worth a listen).
On the one hand side, you have a big trade partner that's made all the more important with the looming Brexit, China, and its national champion, Huawei. The latter is enormous (because of China's own market), reportedly has better and cheaper equipment than the next two big players (Ericson and Nokia), and accuses the US of creating a smokescreen for protectionism.
On the other hand side, you have an important strategic partner that is also made all the more important with the looming Brexit, the US, with its trade war with China, and its security concerns over control of NATO's core 5G network.
The evidence for security issues and potential government overreach is mixed. GCHQ got to review Huawei's source code and found no backdoors. However, they also held no punches and basically spelt out that what they saw was a mess of spaghetti. There's also concern that, while Huawei seems independent today, China could tell it to do a few things down the road -- and the Chinese government isn't one you can really tell no to.
Anyway, there was a recent leak that suggested the UK would allow Huawei to supply 5G network equipment except in core parts of the network. In doing so, May's government would make (already has made...) both sides unhappy. But then, there is no good choice here. If she sides with the US, she'll really piss off China; and vice versa.
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
The UK is caught between a rock and a hard place (well worth a listen).
On the one hand side, you have a big trade partner that's made all the more important with the looming Brexit, China, and its national champion, Huawei. The latter is enormous (because of China's own market), reportedly has better and cheaper equipment than the next two big players (Ericson and Nokia), and accuses the US of creating a smokescreen for protectionism.
On the other hand side, you have an important strategic partner that is also made all the more important with the looming Brexit, the US, with its trade war with China, and its security concerns over control of NATO's core 5G network.
The evidence for security issues and potential government overreach is mixed. GCHQ got to review Huawei's source code and found no backdoors. However, they also held no punches and basically spelt out that what they saw was a mess of spaghetti. There's also concern that, while Huawei seems independent today, China could tell it to do a few things down the road -- and the Chinese government isn't one you can really tell no to.
Anyway, there was a recent leak that suggested the UK would allow Huawei to supply 5G network equipment except in core parts of the network. In doing so, May's government would make (already has made...) both sides unhappy. But then, there is no good choice here. If she sides with the US, she'll really piss off China; and vice versa.
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
answered 4 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
16.6k34775
16.6k34775
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41198%2fwhy-has-the-uk-chosen-to-use-huawei-infrastructure-when-five-eyes-allies-havent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Has the UK announced its decision on the matter? I know most reports speculate the UK government will use Huawei equipment but is there a formal announcement?
– yannis♦
5 hours ago
No, a very good point.
– Rich
5 hours ago
We made that decision quite a long time ago, several of our major mobile operators already have ~50% Huawei equipment in the 4G network, including the core network. If we were serious about not using it, we'd have to shut down our existing mobile networks, and so would most other non-US countries. This is only in the news because the US are making a fuss, in reality the stable door is open and the horse bolted years ago.
– patstew
9 mins ago