UK Minister: Huawei Leaks 'Unacceptable', Criminal Investigation Possible (reuters.com) 77
The UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said on Thursday he could not rule out a criminal investigation over the "unacceptable" disclosure of confidential discussions on the role of China's Huawei in 5G network supply chains. From a report: Huawei, the world's biggest producer of telecoms equipment, is under intense scrutiny after the United States told allies not to use its technology because of fears it could be a vehicle for Chinese spying. Huawei has categorically denied this. Sources told Reuters on Wednesday Britain's National Security Council (NSC) had decided to bar Huawei from all core parts of the country's 5G network and restrict its access to non-core parts. The leak of information from a meeting of the NSC, first reported in national newspapers, has sparked anger in parliament because the committee's discussion are supposed to be secret. "We cannot exclude the possibility of a criminal investigation here," Wright said, speaking in response to an urgent question on Huawei in parliament. "I do not think that the motivation for this leak matters in the slightest. This was unacceptable and it is corrosive to the ability to deliver good government."
Transparency, the root of all evil (Score:1)
Re: Transparency, the root of all evily (Score:1)
You may as well admit that you jerk off while you re-read your crapfloods, right after you post them.
But you're not that good at what you're trying to do.
As a study assignment, you should read the chapter "Why I Want To Fuck Ronald Reagan" from JG Ballard's book "The Atrocity Exhibition." That is truly great writing.
You will never get that good, though. It would help you achieve more satisfying wanking, though, if you would do something (anything!) to improve your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to keep the day job, because you're utterly failed with that translation.
An inability to keep secrets secret greatly cripples any country trying to maintain economic and military security, and rightly loses it the trust of its partners.
I'm British and I would fully support the US cutting off all secret intelligence until someone's in prison for this one. In fact I hope they do, as the Government need a sharp reminder that they're meant to be running a country, not pursuing personal glory.
There is no Huawei (Score:4, Insightful)
There is only the Chinese military; Huawei is a marketing name for the PLA.
Re: (Score:1)
They found WMD's in Iraq. They did not find a nuclear program. Cheney and others lied deliberately about that specific intel to promote the war. They didn't make up the fact that Iraq once had a nuclear program, however.
Huawei is a criminal organization and tentacle of the Chinese Communist Party, wholly owned and operated by same. If you don't see that as "a different situation" than the run up to the Iraq war, you're a fucking idiot. Period.
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2223272/60-min
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"They found WMD's in Iraq."
No, they didn't. Seriously, they never did and also it had no relationship to the 9/11 attack used to justify it even if they had, which they didn't.
Huawei and China are bad but that doesn't change the fact that they never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They found burnt oil fields, a bunch of cash, Saddam in a hole, but no evidence they'd EVER had WMDs.
Re: (Score:1)
but no evidence they'd EVER had WMDs.
They had a lot of chemical weapons and there is a lot of evidence for that.
The term Weapons of Mass Destruction includes chemical weapons as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a bit misleading. The US found chemcial weapons in Iraq back in the Gulf War, iraq round 1. Post 9/11 supposed Iraq connections to 9/11 and WMD search round 2 found no evidence of WMDs other than old materials filled with materials made by the US.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html
Re:So? CIAsco is still 10 times a bigger threat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. At least the US has consistently and historically been an ally and while it might spy to its advantage that advantage is only going to veer so far from the interests of the UK. In fact, it is fair to say the US and UK are cousins. There was a point where the UK was the big bully both relative to the US and the Globe and it certainly acted like one as well. It could be said that any nation will take advantage of being the largest and/or strongest.
China is a completely different beast. The Chinese government opposes democracy, personal freedom, equality, and just about everything the UK stands for. The US simply has a difference of opinion on the details of implementation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
democracy, personal freedom, equality, and just about everything the UK stands for.
Teeheehee...you mean what the UK government claims to stand for right?
What the US and UK government claim to stand for, and what they actually stand for are diametrically opposed.
If you dare to expose their true nature...well you can ask Edward Snowden and Julian Assange how that goes.
Appreciate the rights that you have (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there are problems with our democracies around the edges and they are worth campaigning for. But do not, for an instant, compare them to what is going on in China.
The very fact that you can complain is totally unacceptable in China. And if you are a Uyghur then the right to complain will be the least of your problems.
We have it very good. Treasure what we have.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all an illusion my friend. Ask 90% of Chinese who were living in poverty 30 years ago how they feel about the Chinese government.
And if you are a Uyghur then the right to complain will be the least of your problems.
Yes, ask a black man in America how they feel about the comparison.
I'm not saying they're superior, I'm saying we're no better. Depending on what demographic you're in of course. Same as it's always been...same as it will always be.
Re: (Score:1)
The UK stands for personal freedom and democracy? Not by any sane metric! More like claims they do while doing the opposite .
Re: (Score:1)
From a european standpoint:
Same goes for Cisco and the CIA.
Re: (Score:1)
If it were to actually come down to it, I would pick the PLA. I don't trust my government for much, but I trust them to not extradite me to China on bullshit charges. I don't trust them to not extradite me to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic so are several US companies with close ties to the military.
Not sure what it makes Cisco either... The NSA's bitch perhaps?
Define Core? (Score:2)
What is core? Is street furniture, local links, the broadcast towers non core. Is the core the switching computers that route the traffic? Does anyone know how to divide up the architecture?
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear fission, military, intel, power subsystems, but they don't care about traffic lights except in key locations
Re: Define Core? (Score:1)
It's a well understood term for those in the industry. The core network, not the RAN or other bits.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you control the CN then who cares who's RAN and UE equipment you use?
This is bad because Four Eyes will take action (Score:2)
yes, I know the US thinks it's called Five Eyes but ...
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't understand why you you prefer Four Eyes. Are you saying that one of the eyes is blind? If so, that might be American eye due to the mote (or beam?) at the apex... Nor can I guess what "action" you might be thinking of.
I'm beginning to think that they [Five Eyes] doth protesteth and projecteth too much. I think they may be accusing Huawei of doing what they are already doing (and some more besides). If so, then this story is just another example of (formerly Great) Britain's "special relationship
Perhaps learn to read, you fucking idiot? (Score:2, Interesting)
Again, learn to read you fucking moron. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2223272/60-minutes-torpedoes-huawei-in-less-than-15-minutes.html
They aren't making it up. The fact that POLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS both caught Huawei spies must have been missed by your illiterate ass also, somehow, amazingly.
An obvious idea would be to FUCKING READ ABOUT THIS BEFORE YOU SPOUT NONSENSE.
Re: (Score:2)
A "limited nuclear conflict" is like "limited peeing in the corner of the pool." It ends up affecting anyone anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. It is possible that one casts aspersions on others who do as we do, but we would never spy on your telephone or cell calls, or make security holes in your devices.
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
You still didn't address my main question about why you used the "Four Eyes" subject.
I think your new comment addresses motivations? If so, there are two categories to consider, monetary and conflict-related.
If the goal is just to make money, then Huawei has a strong interest in providing secure equipment so as to attract more customers. There is no doubt that Huawei is strongly motivated to make profits, but that doesn't mean profits are their only concern.
The conflict-related objectives are much more comp
Re: (Score:2)
Not every question will be answered. Get used to disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:2)
5 eyes can become 4 eyes with the UK removed from that level of real time data sharing from the US.
The US can stop sharing its data at ant time for any reason it wants. The UK would be alone with its own networks and what the GCHQ can find the budget for.
The UK would be back trying to run a global collection network on a UK only GCHQ budget.
No more decades of support from US tax payers every year.
No more US help/support/sharing/
Re: (Score:2)
The US could even stop supporting UK subs. The UK would have to support every part of a once US nuclear sub supply chain.
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:2)
The US can certainly remove the UK from its data sharing.
The UK can also remove the US from using UK sites for SIGINT collection. Which would put quite a dent in US data collection...
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing would put a dent in US data collection as its no longer needs access to 1950's UK Commonwealth nations base/site locations.
The US has its own sites now. The loss of the UK as a collection centre is of no issue to the USA.
Nothing the UK offers as a collection location is out of reach for the US in 2019.
The US put decades and a lot of UK tax payers money into shared UK/US sites.
UK gov/mil staff enjoyed so
Re: (Score:2)
The UK does support the US, and it would definitely hurt the US if the UK (and Commonwealth) withdrew their support.
It's not going to happen though, so I'm not really worrying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That left them open to US base support. The US to have its own joint sites with such nations who where now free of UK gov control.
"List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The NSA upgraded to use systems that did not need the 1950's collection that needed UK Commonwealth nations support and UK base locations.
The US can walk away for the UK on
Re: (Score:2)
until the UK gov/mil selected not to support the USA
When was that? In the last century I mean.
It was very useful for UK staff to visit the US and get invited in to see US advancements in mil tech.
It's useful for the US to pop over and see our advancements too.
Re: (Score:2)
When the UK failed to listen to US security advice.
Re "It's useful for the US to pop over and see our advancements too."
The UK has not had any crypto/tech advancements of interest to the USA since the 1940-1970's.
Since then its been a one way transfer of tech/support/ability/projects from the USA to the UK.
A lot of US tax payers support fo shared US sites too.
Re: (Score:2)
That sort of mindless tripe is not what Aldous Huxley would have wanted his name on.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing real time for GCHQ/MI5/6/SAS.
The SAS is then back to 1950's levels of UK communications support around the world without US realtime communications/cover.
The US stops all real time sharing of its collection in Ireland with the UK.
Upgrades and support for the GCHQ are then given to more secure nations that the US can trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-2
UK will do what US daddy says, like a good lap-dog (Score:2, Informative)
And again, there has never been any evidence or anything of substance, only accusations. The US doesn't want Huawei's telecom equipment in Europe, because it stops the US from engaging in cyber espionage and sabotage.
Opacity is necessary for good goverment? (Score:1)
And here I thought opacity was an enabler of corruption.
No secret laws (Score:1)
is the government governing FOR US, or US?
i think it is more likely that Huawei is refusing to install back doors for GCHQ and the NSA.
No surprises there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Brit I take offence at this. The Government's behaviour, that is, not your accurate summary of it.